LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


SPEECHES 


BY 


THE   RT.  HON.  THOMAS  BABINGTON  MACAULAY,  M.P. 

AUTHOR  OF  "THE  HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND  FROM  THE  ACCESSION  OF  JAMES 

THE   SECOND,"   "  LAYS   OF   ANCIENT  ROME,"   "  ESSAYS   FROM  THE 

EDINBURGH  REVIEW,"  ETC.,  ETC. 


IN    TWO    VOLUMES. 

VOL.  I. 

/y 


REDFIELD, 

110    A    112   NASSAU    STREET,    NEW   YORK, 


1853. 


ENTERED,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1852,  by 

.  J.   S.   REDFIELD, 
In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


R.  CRAIGHEAD,  PRINTER  AND  STEREOTYPER, 

.53  retey  ttreet,  New  York. 


PUBLISHER'S    PREFACE. 


FEANCIS,  the  author  of  a  collection  of  portraits  of  con 
temporary  statesmen,  entitled  the  Orators  of  the  Age, 
has  given  in  that  work  a  sketch  of  the  Parliamentary 
manner  and  successes  of  Macaulay.  He  claims  for  him 
the  first  rank  of  the  speakers  of  the  day — no  less  for 
the  literary  and  historical  illustrations  of  his  speeches, 
than  for  their  fidelity  to  the  immediate  interests  of  the 
discussion.  In  the  union  of  these  two  qualities  may  be 
summed  up  Macaulay's  characteristic  merits.  "  He  is  a 
great  reconciler  of  the  new  with  the  old.  Although  he 
may  adorn  a  subject  with  the  lights  afforded  by  his  rare 
genius,  he  never  trifles  with  it.  His  historical  research 
renders  him  a  living  link  with  the  old  and  uncorrupted 
constitution  of  the  country.  *  *  There  is  no  speaker  now 
before  the  public  who  so  readily  and  usefully,  and  with 
so  little  appearance  of  effort,  infuses  the  results  of  very 
extensive  reading  and  very  deep  research  into  the  com 
mon,  every-day  business  of  Parliament.  But  his  learn 
ing  never  tyrannizes  over  his  common  sense.'7*  The 

*  Francis's  Orators  of  the  Age. 


PREFACE, 


political  liberality  and  principle  of  free  development, 
the  honorable  and  humanitarian  spirit  of  these  speeches 
,are  as  obvious. 

The  following  speeches,  which  are  now  for  the  first 
time  brought  together,  are  reprinted  in  a  connected  and 
complete  series  from  the  standard  authority,  Hansard's 
Parliamentary  Debates.  They  embrace  the  whole  of  the 
distinguished  orator's  course  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
from  1830  to  the  present  day.  Among  them  will  be 
found  in  due  chronological  order,  the  several  speeches 
on  the  Reform  Bill,  which  brought  the  orator  so  promi 
nently  forward  in  the  arena  of  the  House  of  Commons 
and  before  the  world,  in  his  vindication  of  the  exten 
sion  of  the  suffrage  and  the  principles  of  representation, 
supported  by  every  •  resource  of  wit,  skilful  argument, 
ingenuity  of  detail,  and  historical  precedent,  including 
those  memorable  passages,  on  the  lessons  of  the  French 
and  English  Revolutions  ;  the  discussion  of  questions 
growing  out  of  the  agitations  in  Ireland  in  1833,  and 
later,  the  measures  of  repression,  the  reform  of  the  Pro 
testant  Church  Establishment,  the  Maynooth  College 
Bill  ;  his  eloquent  review  of  the  East  India  policy,  which 
recalls  the  triumphs  of  Burke  ;  his  Copyright  speeches, 
in  which  he  places  literary  property  on  the  ground  of 
expediency  ;  his  views  on  the  Corn  Laws,  the  Ballot, 
the  Charter  petition,  the  Dissenters'  Chapel  Bill  ;  his 
remarks'  on  the  Treaty  of  Washington  ;  with  many  dis 
cussions  incidental  to  these  and  other  important  topics, 
springing  up  during  his  Parliamentary  career. 

Thomas  Babington  Macaulay  was  born  in  1800.  In 
1818  he  entered  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  obtaining 


a  fellowship  of  that  college  in  1824.  He  then  became 
a  law  student  at  Lincoln's  Inn,  and  was  called  to  the 
bar  in  1826.  At  this  period  he  laid  the  foundation 
of  his  literary  fame  by  his  celebrated  articles  in  the 
Edinburgh  Review  (one  of  the  earliest  of  which,  a  paper 
on  the  Reform  Question,  is  printed  in  the  present 
volumes),  having  previously  given  some  brilliant  poems 
and  sketches  to  Knight's  Quarterly  Magazine.  We  find 
him  in  1830  in  Parliament  under  the  nomination  system, 
sitting  for  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne's  borough  of  Calne 
before  the  Reform  Bill.  He  was  elected  member  for 
Leeds  in  1833,  but  soon  resigned  his  seat  to  proceed 
to  India  as  member  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  Calcutta, 
where  he  was  at  the  head  of  the  Commission  for  the 
Reform  of  East  India  Legislation.  In  1838  he  returned 
to  England,  and  shortly  afterwards  was  elected  member 
for  Edinburgh.  In  1839  he  joined  the  Cabinet  as  Secre 
tary  at  War,  supporting  the  Whig  cause  by  some  of  his 
most  vigorous  speeches.  His  course  in  the  advocacy  of 
the  Maynooth  Grant  probably  lost  him  his  election  at 
Edinburgh  in  1847.  He  was  installed  Rector  of  the 
University  of  Glasgow  in  1849,  and,  as  is  well  known, 
employed  his  time  out  of  Parliament  up  to  his  re-elec 
tion  in  the  present  year,  in  the  composition  of  his 
History  of  England.  His  Lays  of  Ancient  Rome,  pub 
lished  in  1842,  are  a  noble  illustration  of  the  poetic 
force  with  which  he  revivifies  the  dead  facts  of  history. 
As  some  curiosity  may  be  felt  in  this  connexion  to 
know  something  of  Macaulay's  personal  manner  as  a 
speaker,  we  may  add  that,  Mr.  Francis  describes  his 
voice  as  "  monotonous,  pitched  in  alto,  shrill,  pouring 


VI  PREFACE. 

forth  words  with  inconceivable  velocity — a  voice  well 
adapted  to  give  utterance  with  precision  to  the  conclu 
sions  of  the  intellect,  but  in  no  way  naturally  formed 
to  express  feeling  or  passion."  His  face  is  described  as 
"  literally  instinct  with  expression  :  the  eye,  above  all, 
full  of  deep  thought  and  meaning."  In  stature,  he  is 
short  and  stout. 

Macaulay  must  always  be  listened  ,to  and  read  with 
pleasure,  for  the  brilliant  light  he  constantly  throws 
upon  his  object,  whatever  its  character.  Passing  over  his 
great  efforts  in  the  following  collection,  we  may  refer 
for  an  example  of  the  force  of  picturesque  treatment, 
condensing  and  illuminating  the  argument,  to  the  very 
neat  little  casual  speech  on  the  Anatomy  Bill,  with  its 
prompt  disposition  of  the  comparative  interests  of  rich 
and  poor  in  the  question.  It  shows  how  a  man  of 
genius  may  give  value  to  every  occasion. 

New  York,  January,  1863. 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  I. 


PAQB 

English  Politics  in  1827.  From  the  Edinburgh  Review  for  January, 

1827 9 

State  of  Parties.  (A  Sequel  to  the  Preceding.)  From  the  Edinburgh 

Review  for  October,  1827 40 

Speech  in  the  House  of  Commons,  on  the  "Bill  to  Repeal  the  Civil 
Disabilities  affecting  British-born  Subjects  professing  the  Jewish 
Religion."  April  5,  1830 63 

Slavery  in  the  West  Indies.     On  the  Presentation  of  a  Petition  of 
•    West  India  Planters,  and  others  interested  in  Property  in  the 
West  Indies.     December  13,  1830 71 

Parliamentary  Reform.  In  the  Adjourned  Debate  on  the  Motion, 
"  that  leave  be  given  to  bring  in  a  Bill  to  Amend  the  Representa 
tion  of  the  People  of  England  and  Wales."  March  2,  1831  _.__  75 

Parliamentary  Reform.  On  the  Adjourned  Debate  on  the  Second 
Reading  of  Lord  John  Russell's  Parliamentary  Reform  Bill  for 
Ireland.  July  5,  1831 93 

Parliamentary  Reform.     On  the  Third  Reading  of  the  Reform  Bill  for 

England.     September  20,  1831 105 

State  of  the  Nation.     October  10,  1831 121 

Parliamentary  Reform.    December  16,  1831 132 

The  Anatomy  Bill.    February  27,  1832       .        .        .  .      .        .        .148' 

Parliamentary  Reform.  The  Bill  for  England,  Committee,  Seven 
teenth  Day.  February  28,  1832 151 

Parliamentary  Reform.  On  the  Third  Reading  of  the  Bill — for  Eng 
land.  March  19,  1832 160 

The  Resignation  of  Ministers.    May  10,  1832 176 

Slavery  in  the  Colonies.     May  24,  1832 187 


viii  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

The  Russian-Dutch  Loan.     July  12,  1832 191 

The  Affairs  of  the  Country.     February  6,  1833 200 

The  Disturbances  (Ireland)  Bill.    February  28,  1833  .        .        .        .217 

Church  Reform,  Ireland.     April  1,  1833 230 

The  East-India  Company's  Charter  Bill.     July  10,  1833      .         .         .  242 

Ministerial  Plan  for  the  Abolition  of  Slavery.    July  24,  1833      .        .  282 

The  Ballot.    June  18,  1839 291 

Confidence  in  the  Ministry.    January  29,  1840           ....  309 

Vote  of  Thanks  to  the  Indian  Army.    February  6,  1840    .        .        .  882 

Privilege — Stockdale  v.  Hansard — Bill  to  secure  Publication.  March  6, 

1840    .         .        .         . 835 

The  Army  Estimates.    March  9,  1840 343 

The  War  with  China.     April  7,  1840           .        .        .                 ...  354 

Colonial  Passengers'  Bill.     June  4,  1840 373 

Registration  of  Voters — Ireland.     June  19,  1840       ....  377 

Copyright  Bill.     February  5,  1841 ,387 


MACAULAY'S    SPEECHES. 


ENGLISH    POLITICS    IN    1827.* 

The  New   Antijacobin  Review.— Nos.  I.  and  II.     8vo.  London, 

1827. 

WE  ought  to  apologize  to  our  readers  for  prefixing  to  this  article 
the  name  of  such  a  publication.  The  two  numbers  which  lie  on 
our  table  contain  nothing  which  could  be  endured,  even  at  a 
dinner  of  the  Pitt  Club,  unless,  as  the  newspapers  express  it,  the 
hilarity  had  been  continued  to  a  very  late  hour.  We  have  met, 
we  confess,  with  nobody  who  has  ever  seen  them ;  and,  should  our 
account  excite  any  curiosity  respecting  them,  we  fear  that  an 
application  to  the  booksellers  will  already  be  too  late.  Some 
tidings  of  them  may  perhaps  be  obtained  from  the  trunk-makers. 
In  order  to  console  our  readers,  however,  under  this  disappoint 
ment,  we  will  venture  to  assure  them,  that  the  only  subject  on 
which  the  reasonings  of  these  Antijacobin  Reviewers  throw  any 
light,  is  one  in  which  we  take  very  little  interest — the  state  of 
their  own  understandings ;  and  that  the  only  feeling  which  their 

*  From  the  Edinburgh  Review,  Jan.  1827. 

NOTE.  This  article  and  the  following  one,  which  have  not  been  collected 
in  the  edition  of  Macaulay's  Edinburgh  Review  articles,  are  here  printed 
as  an  appropriate  introduction  of  the  celebrated  Speeches  on  the  Reform 
Bill,  to  several  of  the  leading  points  of  which  they  offer  no  slight  resem 
blances. 

i* 


10  ENGLISH     POLITICS     IW     1827. 

pathetic  appeals  have  excited  in  us,  is  that  of  deep  regret  for  our 
four  shillings,  which  are  gone  and  will  return  no  more. 

It  is  not  a  very  cleanly,  or  a  very  agreeable  task,  to  rake  up 
from  the  kennels  of  oblivion  the  remains  of  drowned  abortions, 
which  have  never  opened  their  eyes  on  the  day,  or  even  been 
heard  to  whimper,  but  have  been  at  once  transferred  from  the  filth 
in  which  they  were  littered,  to  the  filth  with  which  they  are  to  rot. 
But  unhappily  we  have  no  choice.  Bad  as  this  work  is,  it  is 
quite  as  good  as  any  which  has  appeared  against  the  present 
administration.  We  have  looked  everywhere,  without  being  able 
to  find  any  antagonist  who  can  possibly  be  as  much  ashamed  of 
defeat  as  we  shall  be  of  victory. 

The  manner  in  which  the  influence  of  the  press  <has,  at  this 
crisis,  been  exercised,  is,  indeed,  very  remarkable.  All  the  talent 
has  been  on  one  side.  With  an  unanimity  which,  as  Lord 
Londonderry  wisely  supposes,  can  be  ascribed  only  to  a  dexterous 
ase  of  the  secret-service  money,  the  able  and  respectable  journals 
of  the  metropolis  have  all  supported  the  new  government.  It  has 
been  attacked,  on  the  other  hand,  by  writers  who  make  every 
sause  which  they  espouse  despicable  or  odious,  — by  one  paper 
which  owes  all  its  notoriety  to  its  reports  of  the  slang  uttered  by 
drunken  lads  who  are  brought  to  Bow  Street  for  breaking  windows 
— by  another,  which  barely  contrives  to  subsist  on  intelligence 
from  butlers,  and  advertisements  from  perfumers.  With  these  are 
joined  all  the  scribblers  who  rest  their  claim  to  orthodoxy  and 
loyalty  on  the  perfection  to  which  they  have  carried  the  arts  of 
ribaldry  and  slander.  What  part  these  gentlemen  would  take  in 
the  present  contest,  seemed  at  first  doubtful.  We  feared,  for  a 
moment,  that  their  servility  might  overpower  their  malignity,  and 
that  they  would  be  even  more  inclined  to  flatter  the  powerful  than 
to  calumniate  the  innocent.  It  turns  out  that  we  were  mistaken ; 
and  we  are  most  thankful  for  it.  They  have  been  kind  enough  to 
spare  us  the  discredit  of  their  alliance.  We  know  not  how  we 


ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827.  11 

should  have  borne  to  be  of  the  same  party  with  them.  It  is  bad 
enough,  God  knows,  to  be  of  the  same  species. 

The  writers  of  the  book  before  us,  \\ho  are  also,  we  believe,  the 
great  majority  of  its  readers,  can  scarcely  be  said  to  belong  to  this 
class.  They  rather  resemble  those  snakes  with  which  Indian 
jugglers  perform  so  many  curious  tricks  :  The  bags  of  venom 
are  left,  but  the  teeth  are  extracted.  That  they  might  omit 
nothing  tending  to  make  them  ridiculous,  they  have  adopted  a 
title  on  which  no  judicious  writer  would  have  ventured ;  and 
challenged  comparison  with  one  of  the  most  ingenious  and  amus 
ing  volumes  in  our  language.  Whether  they  have  assumed  this 
name  on  the  principle  which  influenced  Mr.  Shandy  in  christening 
his  children,  or  from  a  whim  similar  to  that  which  induced  the 
proprietors  of  the  most  frightful  Hottentot  that  ever  lived,  to  give 
her  the  name  of  Venus,  we  shall  not  pretend  to  decide ;  but  we 
would  seriously  advise  them  to  consider,  whether  it  is  for  their 
interest,  that  people  should  be  reminded  of  the  celebrated  imita 
tions  of  Darwin  and  Kotzebue,  while  they  are  reading  such 
parodies  on  the  Bible  as  the  following  :  — "  In  those  days,  a  strange 
person  shall  appear  in  the  land,  and  he  shall  cry  to  the  people, 
Behold,  I  am  possessed  by  the  Demon  of  Ultra-Liberalism  ;  I 
have  received  the  gift  of  incoherence  ;  I  am  a  political  philosopher, 
and  a  professor  of  paradoxes." 

We  would  also,  with  great  respect,  ask  the  gentleman  who  has 
lampooned  Mr.  Canning  in  such  Drydenian  couplets  as  this — 

"  "When  he  said  if  they  would  but  let  him  in, 
He  would  never  try  to  turn  them  out  again," 

whether  his  performance  gains  much  by  being  compared  with 
New  Morality  ?  and,  indeed,  whether  such  satire  as  this  is  likely 
to  make  anybody  laugh  but  himself,  or  to  make  anybody  wince 
but  his  publisher  ? 


12  ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827. 

But  we  must  take  leave  of  the  New  Antijacobin  Review ;  and 
we  do  so,  hoping  that  we  have  secured  the  gratitude  of  its 
conductors.  We  once  heard  a  schoolboy  relate,  with  evident 
satisfaction  and  pride,  that  he  had  been  horsewhipped  by  a  Duke : 
we  trust  that  our  present  condescension  will  be  as  highly  ap 
preciated. 

But  it  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  scarecrow  of  a 
ridiculous  publication,  that  we  address  our  readers  at  the  present 
important  crisis.  We  are  convinced,  that  the  cause  of  the  present 
Ministers  is  the  cause  of  liberty,  the  cause  of  toleration,  the  cause 
of  political  science, — the  cause  of  the  people,  who  are  entitled  to 
expect  from  their  wisdom  and  liberality  many  judicious  reforms, — • 
the  cause  of  the  aristocracy,  who,  unless  those  reforms  be  adopted, 
must  inevitably  be  the  victims  of  a  violent  and  desolating  revolu 
tion.  We  are  convinced,  that  the  government  of  the  country  was 
never  intrusted  to  men  who  more  thoroughly  understood  its 
interest,  or  were  more  sincerely  disposed  to  promote  it — to  men 
who,  in  forming  their  arrangements,  thought  so  much  of  what 
they  could  do,  and  so  little  of  what  they  could  get.  On  the  other 
side,  we  see  a  party  which,  for  ignorance,  intemperance,  and  incon 
sistency,  has  no  parallel  in  our  annals, — which,  as  an  Opposition, 
we  really  think,  is  a  scandal  to  the  nation,  and,  as  a  Ministry, 
would  speedily  be  its  ruin.  Under  these  circumstances,  we  think 
it  our  duty  to  give  our  best  support  to  those  with  whose  power  are 
inseparably  bound  up  all  the  dearest  interests  of  the  community, — 
the  freedom  of  worship,  of  discussion,  and  of  trade, — our  honour 
abroad,  and  our  tranquillity  at  home. 

In  undertaking  the  defence  of  the  Ministers,  we  feel  ourselves 
embarrassed  by  one  difficulty :  we  are  unable  to  comprehend 
distinctly  of  what  they  are  accused.  A  statement  of  facts  may  be 
contradicted  ;  but  the  gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  do  not  deal  in 
statements.  "Reasonings  may  be  refuted ;  but  the  gentlemen  of 
the  Opposition  do  not  reason.  There  is  something  impassive  and 


ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     182*7.  13 

elastic  about  their  dulness,  on  which  all  the  weapons  of  controversy 
are  thrown  away.  It  makes  no  resistance,  and  receives  no  im 
pression.  To  argue  with  it,  is  like  stabbing  the  water,  or 
cudgelling  a  woolpack.  Buonaparte  is  said  to  have  remarked* 
that  the  English  soldiers  at  Waterloo  did  not  know  when  they 
were  beaten.  The  Duke  of  Wellington,  equally  fortunate  in 
politics  and  in  war,  has  the  rare  felicity  of  being  supported  a 
second  time  by  a  force  of  this  description, — men  whose  desperate 
hardihood  in  argument  sets  all  assailants  at  defiance, — who  fight 
on,  though  borne  down  on  every  side  by  overwhelming  proofs, 
rush  enthusiastically  into  the  mouth  of  an  absurdity,  or  stake 
themselves  with  cool  intrepidity  on  the  horn  of  a  dilemma.  We 
doubt  whether  this  unconquerable  pertinacity  be  quite  as  honour 
able  in  debate  as  in  battle ;  but  we  are  sure,  that  it  is  a  very 
difficult  task  for  persons  trained  in  the  old  school  of  logical  tactics 
to  contend  with  antagonists  who  possess  such  a  quality. 

The  species  of  argument  in  which  the  members  of  the  Oppo 
sition  appear  chiefly  to  excel,  is  that  of  which  the  Marquis,  in  the 
Critique  de  VEcole  des  Femmes,  showed  himself  so  great  a  master: 
— "  Tarte  a  la  creme — morbleu,  tarte  a  la  creme !"  "  He  bien, 
que  veux  tu  dire,  tarte  a  ta  creme?"  "Parbleu,  tarte  a  la  creme, 
» chevalier!"  "  Mais  encore  ?"  " Tarte  a  la  creme  !"  Di-nous  un 
peu  tes  raisons."  "  Tarte  a  la  creme  !"  "  Mais  il  faut  expliquer  ta 
pensee,  ce  me  semble."  "  Tarte  a  la  creme,  Madam."  "  Que 
trouvez-vouz  la  a  redire?"  "  Moi,  rien  ; — tarte  a  la  creme!" 
With  equal  taste  and  judgment,  the  writers  and  speakers  of  the 
Opposition  repeat  their  favourite  phrases — "  deserted  principles," 
''unnatural  coalition,"  "base  love  of  office."  They  have  not,  we 
must  allow,  been  unfortunate  in  their  choice  of  a  topic.  The 
English  are  but  too  much  accustomed  to  consider  every  public 
virtue  as  comprised  in  consistency ;  and  the  name  of  coalition  has 
to  many  ears  a  startling  and  ominous  sound.  Of  all  the  charges 


14  ENGLISH     POLITICS     IX      1827. 

brought  against  the  Ministry,  this  alone,  as  far  we  can  discover, 
has  any  meaning ;  and  even  to  this  we  can  allow  no  force. 

To  condemn  coalitions  in  the  abstract,  is  manifestly  absurd : 
Since  in  a  papular  government,  no  good  can  be  done  without 
concert,  and  no  concert  can  be  obtained  without  compromise. 
Those  who  will  not  stoop  to  compliances  which  the  condition  of 
human  nature  renders  necessary,  are  fitter  to  be  hermits  than  to 
be  statesmen.  Their  virtue,  like  gold  which  is  too  refined  to  be 
coined,  must  be  alloyed  before  it  can  be  of  any  use  in  the  commerce 
of  society.  But  most  peculiarly  inconsistent  and  unreasonable  is 
the  conduct  of  those  who,  while  they  profess  strong  Party -feelings, 
yet  entertain  a  superstitious  aversion  to  Coalitions.  Every  ar 
gument  which  can  be  urged  against  coalitions,  as  such,  is  also  an 
argument  against  party  connexions.  Every  argument  by  which 
party  connexions  can  be  defended,  is  a  defence  of  coalitions. 
What  coalitions  are  to  parties,  parties  are  to  individuals.  The 
members  of  a  party,  in  order  to  promote  some  great  common 
object,  consent  to  waive  all  subordinate  considerations : — That 
they  may  co-operate  with  more  effect  where  they  agree,  they 
contrive,  by  reciprocal  concession,  to  preserve  the  semblance  of 
unanimity,  even  where  they  differ.  Men  are  not  thought  unprin 
cipled  for  acting  thus;  because  it  is  evident  that  without  such 
mutual  sacrifices  of  individual  opinions,  no  government  can  be 
formed,  nor  any  important  measures  carried,  in  a  world  of  which 
the  inhabitants  resemble  each  other  so  little,  and  depend  on  each 
other  so  much,  —in  wrhich  there  are  as  many  varieties  of  mind  as  of 
countenance,  yet  in  which  great  effects  can  be  produced  only  by 
combined  exertions.  We  must  extend  the  same  indulgence  to  a 
coalition  between  parties.  If  they  agree  on  every  important  prac 
tical  question,  if  they  differ  only  about  objects  which  are  either 
insignificant  or  unattainable,  no  party  man  can,  on  his  own 
principles,  blame  them  for  uniting.  These  doctrines,  like  all  other 


ENGLISH    POLITICS     IN     1827.  15 

doctrines,  may  be  pushed  to  extremes  by  the  injudicious,  or 
employed  by  the  designing  as  a  pretext  for  profligacy.  But  that 
they  are  not  in  themselves  unreasonable  or  pernicious,  the  whole 
history  of  our  country  proves. 

The  Revolution  itself  was  the  fruit  of  a  coalition  between  parties, 
which  had  attacked  each  other  with  a  fury  unknown  in  later  times. 
In  the  preceding  generation  their  hostility  had  covered  England 
with  blood  and  mourning.  They  had  subsequently  exchanged 
the  sword  for  the  axe  :  But  their  enmity  was  not  the  less  deadly 
because  it  was  disguised  by  the  forms  of  justice.  By  popular 
clamour,  by  infamous  testimony,  by  perverted  law,  they  had  shed 
innocent  and  noble  blood  like  water.  Yet  all  their  animosities 
were  forgotten  in  the  sense  of  their  common  danger.  Whigs  and 
Tories  signed  the  same  associations.  Bishops  and  field-preachers 
thundered  out  the  same  exhortations.  The  doctors  of  Oxford  and 
the  goldsmiths  of  London  sent  in  their  plate  with  equal  zeal.  The 
administration  which,  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne,  defended 
Holland,  rescued  Germany,  conquered  Flanders,  dismembered  the 
monarchy  of  Spain,  shook  the  throne  of  France,  vindicated  the  in 
dependence  of  Europe,  and  established  the  empire  of  the  sea,  was 
formed  by  a  junction  between  men  who  had  many  political  contests 
and  many  personal  injuries  to  forget.  Somers  had  been  a  member 
of  the  ministry  which  had  sent  Marlborough  to  the  Tower.  Marl- 
borough  had  assisted  in  harassing  Somers  by  a  vexatious  im 
peachment.  But  would  these  great  men  have  acted  wisely  or 
honourably  if,  on  such  grounds,  they  had  refused  to  serve  their 
country  in  concert?  The  Cabinet  which  conducted  the  seven 
years'  war  with  such  distinguished  ability  and  success,  was  com 
posed  of  members  who  had  a  short  time  before  been  leaders  of 
opposite  parties.  The  Union  between  Fox  and  North  is,  we  own, 
condemned  by  that  argument  which  it  will  never  be  possible  to 
answer  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  the  great  body  of  mankind, — 
the  argument  from  the  event.  But  we  should  feel  some  surprise  at 


16  ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827. 

the  dislike  which  some  zealous  Pittites  affect  to  entertain  for 
coalitions,  did  we  not  know  that  a  Pittite  means,  in  the  phraseolo 
gy  of  the  present  day,  a  person  who  differs'  from  Mr.  Pitt  on 
every  subject  of  importance.  There  are,  indeed,  two  Pitts, — the 
real  and  the  imaginary, — the  Pitt  of  history,  a  Parliamentary 
reformer,  (an  enemy  of  the  Test  and  Corporation  Acts,)  an  advocate 
of  Catholic  Emancipation  and  of  free  trade, — and  the  canonized 
Pitt  of  the  legend, — as  unlike  to  his  namesake  as  Virgil  the 
magician  to  Virgil  the  Poet,  or  St.  James  the  slayer  of  Moors  to  St- 
James  the  fisherman.  What  may  have  been  the  opinions  of  that 
unreal  being  whose  birth-day  is  celebrated  by  libations  to  Protes 
tant  Ascendency,  on  the  subject  of  coalitions,  we  leave  it  to  his 
veracious  hagiographers,  Lord  Eldon  and  Lord  Westmoreland,  to 
determine.  The  sentiments  of  the  real  Mr.  Pitt  may  be  easily 
ascertained  from  his  conduct.  At  the  time  of  the  revolutionary 
war  he  admitted  to  participation  in  his  power  those  who  had 
formerly  been  his  most  determined  enemies.  In  1804  he  connected 
himself  with  Mr.  Fox,  and,  on  his  return  to  office,  attempted  to 
procure  a  high  situation  in  the  government  for  his  new  ally.  One 
more  instance  we  will  mention,  which  has  little  weight  with  us,  but 
which  ought  to  have  much  weight  with  our  opponents.  They 
talk  of  Mr.  Pitt ; — but  the  real  object  of  their  adoration  is  unques 
tionably  the  late  Mr.  Percival,  a  gentleman  whose  acknowledged 
private  virtues  were  but  a  poor  compensation  to  his  country  for 
the  narrowness  and  feebleness  of  his  policy.  In  1809  that  minister 
offered  to  serve  not  only  with  Lord  Grenville  and  Earl  Grey,  but 
even  under  them.  No  approximation  of  feeling  between  the 
members  of  the  government  and  their  opponents  had  then  taken 
place :  there  had  not  even  been  the  slightest  remission  of  hos 
tilities.  On  no  question  of  foreign  or  domestic  policy  were  the 
two  parties  agreed.  Yet  tinder  such  circumstances  was  this 
proposition  made.  It  was,  as  might  have  been  anticipated,  re 
jected  by  the  Whigs,  and  derided  by  the  country.  But  the 


ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN      1827.  17 

recollection  of  it  ought  certainly  to  prevent  those  who  concuired 
in  it,  and  their  devoted  followers,  from  talking  of  the  baseness  and 
selfishness  of  coalitions. 

These  general  reasonings,  it  may  be  said,  are  superfluous.  It  is 
not  to  coalitions  in  the  abstract,  but  to  the  present  coalition  in 
particular,  that  objection  is  made.  We  answer,  that  an  attack  on 
the  present  coalition  can  only  be  maintained  by  succeeding  in  the 
most  signal  way  in  an  attack  on  coalitions  in  the  abstract.  For 
never  has  the  world  seen,  and  never  is  it  likely  to  see,  a  junction 
between  parties  agreeing  on  so  many  points,  and  differing  on  so 
few.  The  Whigs  and  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Canning  were  united 
in  principle.  They  were  separated  only  by  names,  by  badges,  and 
by  recollections.  Opposition,  on  such  grounds  as  these,  would 
have  been  disgraceful  to  English  statesmen.  It  would  have  been  as 
unreasonable  and  as  profligate  as  the  disputes  of  the  blue  and  green 
factions  in  the  Hippodrome  of  Constantinople.  One  man  admires 
Mr.  Pitt,  and  another  Mr.  Fox.  Are  they  therefore  never  to  act 
together?  Mr.  Pitt  and  Mr.  Fox  were  themselves  willing  to 
coalesce  while  they  were  alive ;  and  it  would  therefore  be  strange, 
if,  after  they  have  been  lying  for  twenty  years  in  Westminster 
Abbey,  their  names  should  keep  parties  asunder.  One  man 
approves  of  the  revolutionary  war.  Another  thinks  it  unjust  and 
impolitic.  But  the  war  is  over.  It  is  now  merely  a  matter  of 
historical  controversy.  And  the  statesman  who  should  require  his 
colleagues  to  adopt  his  confession  of  faith  respecting  it,  would  act 
as  madly  as  Don  Quixote  when  he  went  to  blows  with  Cardenio 
about  the  chastity  of  Queen  Madasima.  On  these  points,  and  on 
many  such  points  as  "these,  our  new  ministers,  no  doubt,  hold 
different  opinions.  They  may  also,  for  aught  we  know,  hold 
different  opinions  about  the  title  of  Perkin  Warbeck,  and  the 
genuineness  of  the  Eixwv  BatfiXpoj.  But  we  shall  hardly,  on  such 
grounds  as  these,  pronounce  their  union  a  sacrifice  of  principle  to 
place. 


18  .        ENGLISH      POLITICS     IN     182Y. 

It  is,  in  short,  of  very  little  importance  whether  the  parties 
which  have  lately  united  entertain  the  same  sentiments  respecting 
things  which  have  been  done  and  cannot  be  undone.  It  is  of  as 
little  importance  whether  they  have  adopted  the  same  speculative 
notions  on  questions  which  could  not  at  present  be  brought 
forward  with  the  slightest  chance  of  success,  and  which,  in  all 
probability,  they  will  never  be  required  to  discuss.  The  real 
questions  are  these  :  Do  they  differ  as  to  the  policy  which  present 
circumstances  require?  Or  is  any  great  cause,  which  they  may 
have  heretofore  espoused,  placed  in  a  more  unfavourable  situation 
by  their  junction  ? 

That  this  is  the  case,  no  person  has  even  attempted  to  prove. 
Bold  assertions  have  indeed  been  made  by  a  class  of  writers,  who 
seem  to  think  that  their  readers  are  as  completely  destitute  of 
memory  as  they  themselves  are  of  shame.  For  the  last  two  years 
they  have  been  abusing  Mr.  Canning  for  adopting  the  principles 
of  the  Whigs  ;  and  they  now  exclaim  that,  in  joining  Mr.  Canning, 
the  Whigs  have  abandoned  all  their  principles  !  "  The  Whigs,"  said 
one  of  their  writers,  but  a  few  m-  -nths  ago,  "  are  exercising  more 
real  power  by  means  of  the  present  Ministers  than  if  they  were 
themselves  in  office."  "  The  Ministers,"  said  another,  "  are  no 
longer  Tories.  What  they  call  conciliation  is  mere  Whiggism." 
A  third  observed  that  the  jest  of  Mr.  Canning  about  Dennis  and 
his  thunder  had  lost  all  its  point,  and  that  it  was  a  lamentable 
truth,  that  all  the  late  measures  of  the  government  seemed  to 
have  been  dictated  by  the  Whigs.  Yet. these  very  authors  have 
now  the  effrontery  to  assert  that  the  Whigs  could  not  possibly 
support  Mr.  Canning  without  renouncing  every  opinion  which 
they  had  formerly  professed. 

We  confidently  affirm,  on  the  other  hand,  that  no  principle 
whatever  has  been  sacrificed.  With  respect  to  our  foreign  relations 
and  our  commercial  policy,  the  two  parties  have  for  years  been 
perfectly  agreed.  On  the  Catholic  question  the  views  of  the 


ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827.  19 

Whigs  are  the  same  with  those  of  a  great  majority  of  their  new 
colleagues.  It  is  true  that,  in  an  illustrious  assembly,  which  was 
formerly  suspected  of  great  dulness  and  great  decorum,  and 
which  has  of  late  effectually  redeemed  itself  from  one  half  of  the 
reproach,  the  conduct  of  the  Whigs  towards  the  Catholics  has  been 
represented  in  a  very  unfavourable  light.  The  arguments  employed 
against  them  belong,  we  suppose,  to  a  kind  of  logic  which  the 
privileged  orders  alone  are  qualified  to  use,  and  which,  with  their 
other  constitutional  distinctions,  we  earnestly  pray  that  they  may 
long  keep  to  themselves.  An  ingenious  member  of  this  assembly 
is  said  to  have  observed,  that  the  Protestant  alarmists  were  bound 
to  oppose  the  new  Ministers  as  friends  to  the  Catholic  cause,  and 
that  the  Catholics  ought  to  oppose  them  as  traitors  to  the  same 
cause.  He  reminded  the  former  of  the  infinite  danger  of  trusting 
power  to  a  Cabinet  composed  principally  of  persons  favourable  to 
emancipation  :  and,  at  the  same  time,  pointed  the  indignation  of 
the  latter  against  the  perfidy  of  the  pretended  friends  who  had 
not  stipulated  that  emancipation  should  be  made  a  ministerial 
measure !  We  cannot  sufficiently  admire  the  exquisite  dexterity  of 
an  assailant  who,  in  the  same  breath,  blames  the  same  people  for 
doing,  and  for  not  doing  the  same  thing.  To  ordinary  plebeian 
understandings  we  should  think  it  undeniable  that  the  Catholic 
question  must  be  now — either  in  the  same  situation  in  which  it 
was  before  the  late  change ;  or  it  must  have  lost ;  or  it  must  have 
gained.  If  it  have  gained,  the  Whigs  are  justified ;  if  it  have  lost, 
the  enemies  of  the  claims  ought  zealously  to  support  the  new 
government ;  if  it  be  exactly  where  it  was  before,  no  person  who 
acted  with  Lord  Liverpool  can,  on  this  ground,  consistently  oppose 
Mr.  Canning. 

In  this  view,  indeed,  the  cause  of  the  Whigs  is  the  cause  of  the 
ministers  who  have  seceded  from  the  Cabinet.  Both  parties  have 
put  in  the  same  plea  ;  and  both  must  be  acquitted  or  condemned 


20  JCNGLISjH     POLITICS     IN     1827. 

together.  If  it  be  allowed  that  the  elevation  of  Mr.  Canning  was 
not  an  event  favourable  to  the  Catholic  cause,  the  Whigs  will 
certainly  stand  convicted  of  inconsistency.  But  at  the  same  time, 
the  only  argument  by  which  the  ex-Ministers  have  attempted  to 
vindicate  their  secession,  must  fall  to  the  ground;  and  it  will  be 
difficult  to  consider  that  proceeding  in  any  other  light  than  as 
a  factious  expedient  to  which  they  have  resorted,  in  order  to 
embarrass  a  colleague  whom  they  envied.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  effect  of  the  late  change  were  such,  that  it  became  tke  duty  of 
those  who  objected  to  Catholic  Emancipation,  to  decline  all  con 
nexion  with  the  Ministry,  it  must  surely  have  become,  at  the  same 
time,  the  duty  of  the  friends  of  Emancipation  to  support  the 
Ministry.  Those  who  take  the  one  ground,  when  their  object  is  to 
vindicate  the  seceders,  and  the  other,  when  their  object  is  to 
blacken  the  Whigs,  who,  in  the  same  speech,  do  not  scruple  to 
represent  the  Catholic  cause  as  triumphant  and  as  hopeless,  may, 
we  fear,  draw  down  some  ridicule  on  themselves,  but  will  hardly 
convince  the  country.  But  why  did  not  the  Whigs  stipulate  that 
some  proposition  for  the  relief  of  the  Catholics  should  be  immedi 
ately  brought  forward,  and  supported  by  the  whole  influence  of  the 
Administration  I  We  answer,  simply  because  they  could  not 
obtain  such  conditions,  and  because,  by  insisting  upon  them,  they 
would  have  irreparably  injured  those  whom  they  meant  to  serve, 
and  have  thrown  the  government  into  the  hands  of  men  who 
would  have  employed  all  its  power  and  patronage  to  support  a 
system  wrhich,  we  do  not  scruple  to  say,  is  the  shame  of  England, 
and  the  curse  of  Ireland.  By  the  course  which  they  have  taken, 
they  have  insured  to  the  sister  kingdom  every  alleviation  which 
its  calamities  can  receive  from  the  lenient  administration  of  an 
oppressive  system.  Under  their  government,  it  will  at  least  be  no 
man's  interest  to  espouse  the  side  of  bigotry.  Truth  will  have  a 
fair  chance  against  prejudice.  And  whenever  the  dislike  with 


ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827.  21 

which  the  majority  of  the  English  people  regard  the  Catholic 
claims  shall  have  been  overcome  by  discussion,  no  other  obstacle 
will  remain  to  be  surmounted. 

The  friends  of  the  Catholics  have,  indeed,  too  long  kept  out  of 
sight  the  real  difficulty  which  impedes  the  progress  of  all  measures 
for  their  relief.  There  has  been  a  nervous  reluctance — perhaps 
a  natural  unwillingness,  to  approach  this  subject.  Yet  it  is  of  the 
utmost  importance  that  it  should  at  last  be  fully  understood.  The 
difficulty,  we  believe,  is  neither  with  the  King  nor  with  the  Ca 
binet, — neither  with  the  Commons  nor  with  the  Lords.  It  is 
with  the  People  of  England ;  and  not  with  the  corrupt,  not  with 
the  servile,  not  with  the  rude  and  uneducated,  not  with  the  disso 
lute  and  turbulent,  but  with  the  great  body  of  the  middling 
orders  ; — of  those  who  live  in  comfort,  and  have  received  some 
instruction.  Of  the  higher  classes,  the  decided  majority  is,  beyond 
all  dispute,  with  the  Catholics.  The  lower  classes  care  nothing  at 
all  about  the  question.  It  is  among  those  whose  influence  is 
generally  exerted  for  the  most  salutary  purposes, — among  those 
from  whom  liberal  statesmen  have,  in  general,  received  the 
strongest  support, — among  those  who  feel  the  deepest  detestation 
of  oppression  and  corruption,  that  erroneous  opinions  on  this 
subject  are  most  frequent.  A  faction  with  which  they  have  no 
other  feeling  in  common,  has,  on  this  question,  repeatedly  made 
them  its  tools,  and  has  diverted  their  attention  more  than  once 
from  its  own  folly  and  profligacy,  by  raising  the  cry  of  No  Popery. 
They  have  espoused  their  opinions,  not  from  want  of  honesty,  not 
from  want  of  sense,  but  simply  from  want  of  information  and 
reflection.  They  think  as  the  most  enlightened  men  in  England 
thought  seventy  or  eighty  years  ago.  Pulteney  and  Pelham 
would  no  more  have  given  political  power  to  Papists  than  to 
ourang-outangs.  A  proposition  for  mitigating  the  severity  of  the 
penal  laws  would,  in  their  time,  have  been  received  with  suspicion. 
The  full  discussion  which  the  subject  has  since  undergone,  has 


22  ENGLISH    POLITICS     IN     1827. 

produced  a  great  change.  ,  Among  intelligent  men  in  that  rank  of 
life  from  which  our  ministers  and  the  members  of  our  legislature 
are  selected,  the  feeling  in  favour  of  concession  is  strong  and 
general.  But,  unfortunately,  sufficient  attention  has  not  been 
paid  to  a  lower,  but  most  influential  and  respectable  class.  The 
friends  of  the  Catholic  claims,  content  with  numbering  in  their 
ranks  all  the  most  distinguished  statesmen  of  two  generations, 
proud  of  lists  of  minorities  and  majorities  adorned  by  every  name 
which  commands  the  respect  of  the  country,  have  not  sufficiently 
exerted  themselves  to  combat  popular  prejudices.  Pamphlets 
against  Emancipation  are  circulated,  and  no  answers  appear. 
Sermons  are  preached  against  it,  and  no  pains  are  taken  to  oblite 
rate  the  impression.  The  rector  carries  a  petition  round  to  every 
shopkeeper  and  every  farmer  in  his  parish,  talks  of  Smithfield  and 
the  inquisition.  Bishop  Bonner  and  Judge  Jeffries.  No  person 
takes  the  trouble  to  canvass  on  the  other  side.  At  an  election,  the 
candidate  who  is  favourable  to  the  Catholic  claims,  is  almost  always 
content  to  stand  on  the  defensive.  He  shrinks  from  the  odium  of 
a  bold  avowal.  While  his  antagonist  asserts  and  reviles,  he 
palliates,  evades,  and  distinguishes.  He  is  unwilling  to  give  a 
pledge  :  he  has  not  made  up  his  mind :  he  hopes  that  adequate 
securities  for  the  Church  may  be  obtained  :  he  will  wait  to  see  how 
the  Catholic  States  of  South  America  behave  themselves !  And 
thus,  as  fast  as  he  can,  he  gets  away  from  the  obnoxious  subject, 
to  retrenchment,  reform,  or  negro  slavery.  If  such  a  man  succeeds, 
his  vote  does  not  benefit  the  Catholics  half  so  much  as  his  shuffling 
injures  them.  How  can  the  people  understand  the  question,  when 
those  whose  business  is  to  enlighten  them,  will  not  state  it  to  them 
plainly  ?  Is  it  strange  that  they  should  dislike  a  cause  of  which 
almost  all  its  advocates  seem  to  be  ashamed?  If,  at  the  late 
election,  all  our  public  men  who  are  favourable  to  Emancipation 
had  dared  to  speak  out,  had  introduced  the  subject  of  their  own 
accord,  and  discussed  it  day  after  day,  they  might  have  lost  a  few 


ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827.  23 

votes  ;  they  might  have  been  compelled  to  face  a  few  dead  cats ; 
but  they  would  have  put  down  the  prejudice  effectually.  Five  or 
six  friends  of  the  claims  might  have  been  unseated,  but  the  claims 
would  have  been  carried. 

The  popular  aversion  to  them  is  an  honest  aversion  ;  according 
to  the  measure  of  knowledge  which  the  people  possess,  it  is  a  just 
aversion.  It  has  been  reasoned  down  wherever  the  experiment 
has  been  fearlessly  tried.  It  may  be  reasoned  down  everywhere. 
The  war  should  be  carried  on  in  every  quarter.  No  misrepresen 
tation  should  be  suffered  to  pass  unrefuted.  When  a  silly  letter 
from  Philo-Melancthon,  or  Anti-Doyle,  about  the  Coronation  Oath, 
or  divided  allegiance,  makes  its  appearance  in  the  corner  of  a 
provincial  newspaper,  it  will  not  do  merely  to  say  "  What  stuff !" 
We  must  remember  that  such  statements  constantly  reiterated, 
and  seldom  answered,  will  assuredly  be  believed.  Plain,  spirited, 
moderate  treatises  on  the  subject,  should  find  their  way  into  every 
cottage; — not  such  rancorous  nonsense  as  that  for  which  the 
Catholics  formerly  contracted  with  the  fiercest  and  basest  libeller 
of  the  age,  the  apostate  politician,  the  fraudulent  debtor,  the 
ungrateful  friend,  whom  England  has  twice  spewed  out  to 
America ;  whom  America,  though  far  from  squeamish,  has  twice 
vomited  back  to  England.  They  will  not,  they  may  be  assured, 
serve  their  cause  by  pouring  forth  unmeasured  abuse  on  men 
whose  memory  is  justly  dear  to  the  hearts  of  a  great  people ; — 
men  mighty  even  in  their  weaknesses,  and  wise  even  in  their 
fanaticism  ; — the  goodly  fellowship  of  our  reformers, — the  noble 
army  of  our  martyrs.  Their  scandal  about  Queen  Elizabeth,  and 
their  wood-cuts  of  the  devil  whispering  in  the  ear  of  John  Fox, 
will  produce  nothing  but  disgust.  They  must  conduct  the  con 
troversy  with  good  sense  and  good  temper,  and  there  cannot  be 
the  slightest  doubt  of  the  issue.  But  of  this  they  may  be  fully 
assured,  that,  while  the  general  feeling  of  the  Nation  remains 
unchanged,  a  Ministry  which  should  stake  its  existence  on  the 


24  ENGLISH    "POLITICS     IN     1827. 

success   of    their    claims,    would   ruin    itself,    without   benefiting 
them. 

The  conduct  of  the  Catholics,  on  the  present  occasion,  deserves 
the  highest  praise.  They  have  shown  that  experience  has  at  last 
taught  them  to  know  their  enemies  from  their  friends.  Indeed, 
there  are  few  scenes  in  this  tragicomic  world  of  ours  more  amusing 
than  that  which  the  leaders  of  the  Opposition  are  now  performing. 
The  very  men  who  have  so  long  obstructed  Emancipation — who 
have  stirred  up  the  public  feeling  in  England  against  Emancipation, 
— who,  in  fine,  have  just  resigned  their  offices,  because  a  supporter 
of  Emancipation  was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  government, — are 
now  weeping  over  the  disappointed  hopes  of  the  poor  Papists,  and 
execrating  the  perfidious  Whigs  who  have  taken  office  without 
stipulating  for  their  relief!  The  Catholics  are,  in  the  meantime,  in 
the  highest  spirits,  congratulating  themselves  on  the  success  of 
their  old  friends,  and  laughing  at  the  condoling  visages  of  their 
new  champions. 

Something  not  very  dissimilar  is  taking  place  with  respect  to 
Parliamentary  Reform.  The  reformers  are  delighted  with  the  new 
Ministry.  Their  opponents  are  trying  to  convince  them  that  they 
ought  to  be  dissatisfied  with  it.  The  Whigs,  we  suppose,  ought  to 
have  insisted  that  Reform  should  be  made  a  Ministerial  measure. 
We  will  not  at  present  inquire  whether  they  have,  as  a  body,  ever 
declared  any  decided  opinion  on  the  subject.  A  much  shorter 
answer  will  suffice.  Be  Reform  good  or  bad,  it  is  at  present 
evidently  unattainable.  No  man  can,  by  coming  into  office,  or  by 
going  out  of  office,  either  effect  it  or  prevent  it.  As  we  are  arguing 
with  people  who  are  more  influenced  by  one  name  than  by  ten 
reasons,  we  will  remind  them  of  the  conduct  pursued  by  Mr.  Pitt 
with  regard  to  this  question.  At  the  very  time  when  he  publicly 
pledged  himself  to  use  his  whole  power,  "  as  a  man  and  as  a 
minister,  honestly  and  boldly"  to  carry  a  proposition  of  Parlia 
mentary  Reform,  he  was  sitting  in  the  same  Cabinet  with  persons 


ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827.  25 

decidedly  hostile  to  every  measure  of  the  kind.  At  the  present 
juncture,  we  own  that  we  should  think  it  as  absurd  in  any  man  to 
decline  office  for  the  sake  of  this  object,  as  it  would  have  been  in 
Sir  Thomas  More  to  refuse  the  Great  Seal,  because  he  could  not 
introduce  all  the  institutions  of  Utopia  into  England.  The  world 
would  be  in  a  wretched  state  indeed,  if  no  person  were  to  accept  of 
power,  under  a  form  of  government  which  he  thinks  susceptible  of 
improvement.  The  effect  of  such  scrupulosity  would  be,  that  the 
best  and  wisest  men  would  always  be  out  of  place  ;  that  all  author 
ity  would  be  committed  to  those  who  might  be  too  stupid  or  too 
selfish  to  see  abuses  in  any  system  by  which  they  could  profit,  and 
who,  by  their  follies  and  vices,  would  aggravate  all  the  evils 
springing  from  defective  institutions. 

But  were  we  to  admit  the  truth  of  every  charge  which  personal 
enemies  or  professional  slanderers  have  brought  against  the  present 
ministers  of  the  Crown,  were  we  to  admit  that  they  had  abandoned 
their  principles,  that  they  had  betrayed  the  Catholics  and  the 
Reformers,  it  would  still  remain  to  be  considered,  whether  we 
might  not  change  for  the  worse.  We  trust  in  God  that  there  is 
no  danger.  We  think  that  this  country  never  will,  never  can,  be 
subjected  to  the  rule  of  a  party  so  weak,  so  violent,  so  osten 
tatiously  selfish,  as  that  which  is  now  in  Opposition.  Has  the 
Cabinet  been  formed  by  a  coalition?  How,  let  us  ask,  has  the 
Opposition  been  formed  ?  Is  it  not  composed  of  men  who  have,  all 
their  lives,  been  thwarting  and  abusing  each  other,  Jacobins, 
Whigs,  Tories,  friends  of  Catholic  Emancipation,  enemies  of 
Catholic  Emancipation, — men  united  only  by  their  common  love 
of  high  rents,  by  their  common  envy  of  superior  abilities,  by  their 
common  wish  to  depress  the  people  and  to  dictate  to  the  throne  ? 
Did  Lord  Lansdowne  at  any  time  differ  so  widely  from  Mr. 
Canning  as  Lord  Redesdale  from  Lord  Lauderdale — sometime 
needle-maker,  and  candidate  for  the  shrievalty  of  London  ?  Are 
the  Ministers  charged  with  deserting  their  opinions  ?  and  can  we 
VOL.  I.  2 


26  ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827. 

find  no  instance  of  miraculous  conversion  on  the  left  of  the 
woolsack  ?  What  was  the  influence  which  transformed  the  Friend 
of  the  People  into  an  aristocrat,  "  resolved  to  stand  or  fall  with  his 
order?"  Whence  was  the  sudden  illumination,  which  at  once 
disclosed  to  all  the  discarded  Ministers  the  imperfections  of  the 
Corn  Bill  ?  Let  us  suppose  that  the  Whigs  had,  as  a  party, 
brought  forward  some  great  measure  before  the  late  changes,  that 
they  had  carried  it  through  the  Commons,  that  they  had  sent  it 
up,  with  the  fairest  prospect  of  success,  to  the  Lords,  and  that  they 
had  then,  in  order  to  gratify  Mr.  Canning,  consented,  in  the  face 
of  all  their  previous  declarations,  to  defeat  it,  what  a  tempest  of 
execration  and  derision  would  have  burst  upon  them !  Yet  the 
conduct  of  the  Ex-Ministers,  according  to  the  best  lights  we  can 
obtain  upon  it,  was  even  more  culpable  than  this.  Not  content 
with  doing  a  bad  thing,  they  did  it  in  the  worst  way.  The  bill 
which  had  been  prepared  by  the  leader  for  whom  they  professed 
boundless  veneration,  which  had  been  brought  in  under  their  own 
sanction,  which,  as  they  positively  declared,  had  received  their 
fullest  consideration,  which  one  of  themselves  had  undertaken  to 
conduct  through  the  House  of  Lords,  that  very  bill  they  contrived 
to  •  defeat : — and,  in  the  act  of  defeating  it,  they  attempted  to  lay 
upon  the  colleagues  whom  they  had  deserted,  the  burden  of  public 
resentment  which  they  alone  had  incurred.  We  would  speak  with 
indulgence  of  men  who  had  done  their  country  noble  service  before 
— and  of  many  of  whom,  individually,  it  must  be  impossible  to 
think  otherwise  than  with  respect.  But  the  scene  lately  passed 
in  that  great  assembly  has  afflicted  and  disgusted  the  country  at 
large  ;  and  it  is  not  the  least  of  its  evil  consequences,  that  it  has 
lessened  in  the  public  estimation,  not  only  a  body  which  ought 
always  to  be  looked  up  to  with  respect,  but  many  individuals  of 
whose  motives  we  cannot  bring  ourselves  to  judge  unfavourably, 
and  from  whose  high  qualities  we  trust  the  country  may  yet 
receive  both  benefit  and  honour.  Mr.  Peel  fortunately  did  not 


ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827.  27 

expose  himself  quite  as  effectually  as  his  associates;  though  we 
regret  that  the  tone  he  adopted  was  so  undecided  and  equivocal. 
It  was  not  for  him  to  pronounce  any  judgment  on  the  wisdom  of 
their  conduct.  He  was  fully  convinced  of  the  purity  of  their 
motives.  And  finally  it  was  the  eighteenth  of  June ! — a  day  on 
which,  it  seems,  the  Duke  of  Wellington  is  privileged  to  commit 
all  sorts  of  mischief  with  impunity  to  the  end  of  his  life.  The 
Duke  of  Wellington,  however,  though  the  part  which  he  took  was 
unfortunately  prominent,  seems  to  have  been  comparatively  inno 
cent.  He  might  not,  while  in  office,  have  paid  much  attention  to 
the  measure  in  its  original  form.  He  might  not  have  understood 
the  real  nature  of  his  own  unlucky  amendment.  But  what  were 
the  motives  of  Earl  Bathurst  ?  Or  where  were  they  when  he  under 
took  the  care  of  the  bill  in  its  former  shape  ?  Nothing  had  been 
changed  since,  excepting  his  own  situation.  And  it  would  be  the 
very  madness  of  charity  to  believe,  that,  if  he  had  still  been  a 
colleague  of  Lord  Liverpool,  or  had  been  able  to  come  to  terms 
with  Mr.  Canning,  he  would  have  pursued  such  a  line  of  conduct. 
Culpably  as  all  his  coadjutors  have  acted  in  this  transaction,  his 
share  of  it  is  the  most  indefensible. 

And  it  is  for  these,  men, — for  men  who,  before  they  have  been 
two  months  out  of  office,  have  retracted  the  declarations  which 
they  made  on  a  most  important  subject  just  before  they  quitted 
office, — that  we  are  to  discard  the  present  ministers,  as  inconsistent 
and  unprincipled !  And  these  men  are  the  idols  of  those  who 
entertain  so  virtuous  a  loathing  for  unnatural  coalitions,  and  base 
compromises.  These  men  think  themselves  entitled  to  boast  of 
the  purity  of  their  public  virtues,  and  to  repel,  with  indignant 
amazement,  any  imputation  of  interested  or  factious  motives. 

We  dwell  long  on  this  event;  because  it  is  one  which  enables 
the  country  to  estimate  correctly  the  practical  principles  of  those 
who,  if  the  present  ministers  should  fall,  will  assuredly  take  their 


28  ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN      1827. 

places.  To  call  their  conduct  merely  factious,  is  to  deal  with  it  far 
too  mildly.  It  has  been  factious  at  the  expense  of  consistency,  and 
of  all  concern  for  the  wishes  and  interests  of  the  people.  Was 
there  no  other  mode  of  embarrassing  the  government  ?  Could  no 
other  opportunity  be  found  or  made  for  a  division  ?  Was  there  no 
other  pledge  which  could  be  violated,  if  not  with  less  awkwardness 
to  themselves,  at  least  with  less  injury  to  the  state?  Was  it 
necessary  that  they  should  make  a  handle  of  a  question  on  which 
the  passions  of  the  people  were  roused  to  the  highest  point,  and 
on  which  its  daily  bread  might  depend  that  they  should  condemn 
the  country  to  another  year  of  agitation,  and  expose  it  to  dangers, 
which,  only  a  few  months  before,  they  had  themselves  thought  it 
necessary  to  avert,  by  advising  an  extraordinary  exercise  of  the 
prerogative  ?  There  is  one  explanation,  and  only  one.  They  were 
out,  and  they  longed  to  be  in.  Decency,  consistency,  the  prospe 
rity  and  peace  of  the  country,  were  as  dust  in  the  balance.  They 
knew  this  question  had  divided  men  who  were  generally  united, 
and  united  others  who  were  usually  opposed ;  and  though  they 
themselves  had  already  taken  their  part  with  their  colleagues  in 
office  and  the  more  intelligent  part  of  their  habitual  opponents, 
they  did  not  scruple,  for  the  sake  of  embarrassing  those  they  had 
deserted,  to  purchase  tfie  appearance  of  a  numerous  following,  by 
opposing  a  measure  jivhich  they  had  themselves  concocted,  and 
pledged  themselves  (6  support.  From  the  expedients  to  which 
they  have  resorted  in /Opposition,  we  may  judge  of  what  we  have 
to  expect  if  they  should  ever  return  to  office. 

They  will  return  too,  it  must  be  remembered,  not,  as  before,  the 
colleagues  of  men  by  whose  superior  talents  they  were  overawed, 
and  to  whose  beneficial  measures  they  were  often  compelled  to 
yield  a  reluctant  consent.  The  late  change  has  separated  the 
greater  part  of  them  from  all  such  associates  for  ever :  it  has 
divided  the  light  from  the  darkness :  it  has  set  all  the  wisdom,  all 


ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827.  29 

the  liberality,  all  the  public  spirit  on  one  side ;  the  imbecility,  the 
bigotry,  and  the  rashness  on  the  other.  If  they  rule  again,  they 
will  rule  alone. 

They  will  return  to  situations  which  they  will  owe  neither  to 
their  talents  nor  to  their  virtues,  neither  to  the  choice  of  their  King 
nor  to  the  love  of  their  country ;  but  solely  to  the  support  of  an 
Oligarchical  Faction,  richly  endowed  with  every  quality  which 
ensures  to  its  possessors  the  hatred  of  a  nation, — a  faction  arbitrary, 
bigoted,  and  insolent, — a  faction  which  makes  parade  of  its 
contempt  for  the  dearest  interests  of  mankind,  which  loves  to 
make  the  people  feel  of  how  little  weight,  in  its  deliberations,  is 
the  consideration  of  their  happiness. 

On  this  party,  and  on  this  alone,  must  such  ministers,-  returning 
from  such  a  secession,  rely  to  uphold  them  against  the  public 
opinion,  against  the  wishes  of  a  King  who  has  wisely  and  nobly 
performed  his  duty  to  the  state,  against  \he  most  beloved  and 
respected  portion  of  the  aristocracy,  against  a  formidable  union  of 
all  the  great  statesmen  and  orators  of  the  age.  It  was  believed  by 
those  of  whose  wisdom  Lord  Eldon  and  the  Duke  of  Newcastle 
think  with  reverence,  that,  in  the  bond  between  a  sorcerer  and  his 
familiar  demon,  there  was  a  stipulation  that  the  gifts  bestowed  by 
the  Powers  of  Evil  should  never  be  employed  but  for  purposes  of 
evil.  Omnipotent  for  mischief,  these  obligors  of  the  fiend  were 
powerless  for  good.  Such  will  be  the  compact  between  the  Ex-Mi 
nisters,  if  ever  they  should  return  to  power,  and  the  only  party  which 
can  then  support  them.  That  they  may  be  masters,  they  must  be 
slaves.  They  will  be  able  to  stand  only  by  abject  submission  and 
by  boundless  profusion — by  giving  up  the  People  to  be  oppressed, 
first  for  the  profit  of  the  Great,  and  then  for  their  amusement, — by 
corn-laws,  and  game-laws,  and  pensions  for  Lord  Robert,  and  places 
for  Lord  John. 

They  will  return  pledged  to  oppose  every  reform,  to  maintain  a 
constant  struggle  against  the  spirit  of  the  age,  to  defend  abuses  to 


30  ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827. 

which  the  nation  is  every  day  becoming  more  quick-sighted. 
Even  Mr.  Peel,  i£  unluckily,  he  should  at  last  identify  himself 
with  their  faction,  must  restrain  his  propensity  to  innovation. 
Mutterings  have  already  been  heard  in  high  places  against  his 
tendencies  to  liberality  ;  and  all  his  schemes  for  the  reformation  of 
our  code  or  our  courts  must  be  abandoned. 

Then  will  come  all  those  desperate  and  cruel  expedients  of  which 
none  but  bad  governments  stand  in  need.  The  press  is  trou 
blesome.  There  must  be  fresh  laws  against  the  press.  Secret 
societies  are  formed.  The  Habeas  Corpus  act  must  be  suspended. 
The  people  are  distressed  and  tumultuous.  They  must  be  kept 
down  by  force.  The  army  must  be  increased  ;  and  the  taxes  must 
be  increase^.  Then  the  distress  and  tumult  are  increased :  and 
then  the  army  must  be  increased  again !  The  country  will  be 
governed  as  a  child  is  governed  by  an  ill-tempered  nurse, — first 
beaten  till  it  cries,  and  then  beaten  because  it  cries  ! 

Our  firm  conviction  is,  that  if  the  seceders  return  to  office,  they 
will  act  thus ;  and  that  they  will  not  have  the  power,  even  if  they 
should  have  the  inclination,  to  act  otherwise.  And  what  must  the 
end  of  these  things  be?  We  answer,  without  hesitation,  that,  if 
this  course  be  persisted  in,  if  these  counsels  and  these  counsellors 
are  maintained,  the  end  must  be,  a  revolution,  a  bloody  and 
unsparing  revolution — a  revolution  which  will  make  the  ears  of 
those  who  hear  of  it  tingle  in  the  remotest  countries,  and  in  the 
remotest  times.  The  middling  orders  in  England  are,  we  well 
know,  attached  to  the  institutions  of  their  country,  but  not  with  a. 
blindly  partial  attachment.  They  see  the  merits  of  the  system; 
but  they  also  see  its  faults ;  and  they  have  a  strong  and  growing 
desire  that  these  faults  should  be  removed.  If,  while  their  wish 
for  improvement  is  becoming  stronger  and  stronger,  the  govern 
ment  is  to  become  worse  and  worse,  the  consequences  are  obvious. 
Even  now,  it  is  impossible  to  disguise,  that  there  is  arising  in  the 
bosom  of  that  class  a  Republican  sect,  as  audacious,  as  paradoxical, 


ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827.  31 

as  little  inclined  to  respect  antiquity,  as  enthusiastically  attached  to 
its  ends,  as  unscrupulous  in  the  choice  of  its  means,  as  the  French 
Jacobins  themselves, — but  far  superior  to  the  French  Jacobins  in 
acuteness  and  information — in  caution,  in  patience,  and  in  reso 
lution.  They  are  men  whose  minds  have  been  put  into  training 
for  violent  exertion.  All  that  is  merely  ornamental — all  that  gives 
the  roundness,  the  smoothness,  and  the  bloom,  has  been  exsuded. 
Nothing  is  left  but  nerve,  and  muscle,  and  bone.  Their  love  of 
liberty  is  no  boyish  fancy.  It  is  not  nourished  by  rhetoric,  and  it 
does  not  evaporate  in  rhetoric.  They  care  nothing  for  Leonidas, 
and  Epaminondas,  and  Brutus,  and  Codes.  They  profess  to 
derive  their  opinions  fiom  demonstration  alone  ;  and  are  never  so 
little  satisfied  with  the  m  as  when  they  see  them  exhibited  in  a 
romantic  form.  Metaphysical  and  political  science  engage  their 
whole  attention.  Phi!  >sophical  pride  has  done  for  them  what 
spiritual  pride  did  for  the  Puritans  in  a  former  age ;  it  has  ge 
nerated  in  them  an  aversion  for  the  fine  arts,  for  elegant  literature, 
and  for  the  sentiments  of  chivalry.  It  has  made  them  arrogant, 
intolerant,  and  impatient  of  all  superiority.  These  qualities  will, 
in  spite  of  their  real  claims  to  respect,  render  them  unpopular, 
as  long  as  the  people  are  satisfied  with  their  rulers.  But  under  an 
ignorant  and  tyrannical  ministry,  obstinately  opposed  to  the  most 
moderate  and  judicious  innovations,  their  principles  would  spread 
as  rapidly  as  those  of  the  Puritans  formerly  spread,  in  spite  of 
their  offensive  peculiarities.  The  public,  disgusted  with  the  blind 
adherence  of  its  rulers  to  ancient  abuses,  would  be  reconciled  to 
the  most  startling  novelties.  A  strong  democratic  party  would  be 
formed  in  the  educated  class.  In  the  lowest,  and  most  numerous 
order  of  the  population,  those  who  have  any  opinions  at  all  are  de 
mocrats  already.  In  our  manufacturing  towns,  the  feeling  is  even 
now  formidably  strong ;  and  it  is  not  strange  that  it  should  be  so  : 
For  it  is  on  persons  in  this  station  that  the'abuses  of  our  system 
press  most  heavily;  while  its  advantages,  on  the  other  hand, 


32  ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827. 

are  comparatively  little  felt  by  them.  An  abundant  supply  of  the 
necessaries  of  life  is,  with  them,  almost  the  only  consideration. 
The  difference  between  an  arbitrary  and  a  limited  monarchy 
vanishes,  when  compared  with  the  difference  between  one  meal 
a-day  and  three  meals  a-day.  It  is  poor  consolation  to  a  man  who 
has  had  no  breakfast,  and  expects  no  supper,  that  the  King  does 
not  possess  a  dispensing  power,  and  that  troops  cannot  be  raised  in 
time  of  peace,  without  the  consent  of  Parliament.  With  this  class, 
our  government,  free  as  it  is,  is  even  now  as  unpopular  as  if  it 
were  despotic, — nay,  much  more  so.  In  despotic  states,  the  multi 
tude  is  unaccustomed  to  general  speculations  on  politics.  Even 
when  men  suffer  most  severely,  they  look  no  further  than  the 
proximate  cause.  They  demand  the  abolition  of  a  particular  duty, 
or  tear  an  obnoxious  individual  to  pieces.  But  they  never  think 
of  attacking  the  whole  system.  If  Constantinople  were  in  the 
state  in  which  Manchester  and  Leeds  have  lately  been,  there 
would  be  a  cry  against  the  Grand  Vizier  or  the  bakers.  The 
head  of  the  Vizier  would  be  thrown  to  the  mob,  over  the  wall  of 
the  Seraglio — a  score  of  bakers  would  be  smothered  in  their  own 
ovens ;  and  everything  would  go  on  as  before.  Not  a  single 
rioter  would  think  of  curtailing  the  prerogatives  of  the  Sultan,  or 
of  demanding  a  representative  divan.  But  people  familiar  with 
political  inquiries  carry  their  scrutiny  farther;  and,  justly  or 
unjustly,  attribute  the  grievances  under  which  they  labour,  to 
defects  in  the  original  constitution  of  the  government.  Thus  it  is 
with  a  large  proportion  of  our  spinners,  our  grinders,  and  our 
weavers.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  in  a  season  of  distress, 
they  are  ripe  for  any  revolution.  This,  indeed,  is  acknowledged  by 
all  the  Tory  writers  of  our  time.  But  all  this,  they  tell  us,  comes 
of  education — it  is  all  the  fault  of  the  Liberals.  We  will  not  take 
up  the  time  of  our  readers  with  answering  such  observations.  We 
will  only  remind  our  gentry  and  clergy,  that  the  question  at 
present  is  not  about  the  cause  of  the  evil,  but  about  its  cure  ;  and 


'„     ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     182Y.  33 

that,  unless  due  precaution  be  used,  let  the  fault  be  whose  it  may, 
the  punishment  will  inevitably  be  their  own. 

The  history  of  our  country,  since  the  peace  of  1815,  is  almost 
entirely  made  up  of  the  struggles  of  the  lower  orders  against  the 
government,  and  of  the  efforts  of  the  government  to  keep  them 
down.     In  1816,  immense  assemblies  were  convened,  secret  socie 
ties  were  formed,  and  gross  outrages  were  committed.     In  1817, 
the   Habeas   Corpus   Act  was   twice   suspended.     In    1819,   the 
disturbances  broke  out  afresh.     Meetings  were  held,  so  formidable, 
from  their  numbers  and  their  spirit,  that  the  Ministry,  and  the 
Parliament,   approved  of  the  conduct    of  magistrates  who  had 
dispersed  one  of  them  by  the  sword.     Fresh  laws  were  passed 
against  seditious  writings  and  practices.     Yet  the  following  year 
commenced  with  a  desperate  and  extended  conspiracy   for  the 
assassination  of  the  cabinet,  and  the  subversion  of  the  government. 
A   few   months  after   this    event,    the    Queen  landed.     On   that 
occasion,  the  majority  of  the  middling  orders  joined  with  the  mob. 
The  effect  of  the  union  was  irresistible.     The  Ministers  and  the 
Parliament  stood  aghast;    the  bill   of  pains  and  penalties  was 
dropped ;  and  a  convulsion,  which  seemed  inevitable,  was  averted. 
But  the  events  of  that  year  ought  to  impress  one  lesson  on  the 
mind  of  every  public  man, — that  an  alliance  between  the   dis 
affected  multitude  and  a  large  portion  of  the  middling  orders,  is 
one  with  which    no   government  can  venture   to   cope,  without 
imminent  danger  to  the  constitution. 

A  government  like  that  with  which  England  would  be  cursed,  if 
the  present  Ministry  should  fall  before  the  present  Opposition, 
would  render  such  an  alliance  not  only  inevitable,  but  permanent. 
In  less  than  ten  years,  it  would  goad  every  Reformer  in  the 
country  into  a  Revolutionist.  It  would  place  at  the  head  of  the 
multitude,  persons  possessing  all  the  education,  all  the  judgment, 
and  all  the  habits  of  co-operation,  in  which  the  multitude  itself  is 
Jeficient,  That  great  body  ig  physically  the  most  powerful  in  the 

2* 


34  ENGLISH    POLITICS     IN     1827. 

state.  Like  the  Hebrew  champion,  it  is  yet  held  in  captivity  by  its 
blindness.  But  if  once  the  eyeless  Giant  shall  find  a  guide  to  put 
his  hand  on  the  props  of  the  State — if  once  he  shall  bow  himself 
upon  the  pillars,  woe  to  all  those  who  have  made  him  their 
laughing-stock,  or  chained  him  to  grind  at  their  mill ! 

We  do,  therefore,  firmly  believe,  that,  even  if  no  external  cause 
were  to  precipitate  a  fatal  crisis,  this  country  could  not  be  governed 
for  a  single  generation  by  such  men  as  Lord  Westmoreland  and 
Lord  Eldon,  without  extreme  risk  of  revolution.  But  there  are 
other  symptoms  in  the  body  politic,  not  less  alarming  than  those 
which  we  have  described.  In  Ireland,  there  are  several  millions 
of  Catholics,  who  do  not  love  our  government ;  and  who  detest, 
with  all  their  heart,  with  all  their  soul,  with  all  their  mind,  and 
with  all  their  strength,  the  party  now  in  Opposition.  The  accession 
of  that  party  to  power,  would  be  a  death-blow  to  their  hopes  of 
obtaining  their  demands  by  constitutional  means :  and  we  may 
fairly  expect,  that  all  the  events  which  followed  the  recall  of  Lord 
Fitzwilliam,  will  take  place  again,  on  a  greater  and  more  formidable 
scale.  One  thing,  indeed,  we  have  no  right  to  expect,  that  a  second 
Hoche  will  be  as  unfortunate  as  the  former.  A  civil  war  in  Ireland 
will  lead  almost  necessarily  to  a  war  with  France.  Maritime 
hostilities  with  France,  and  the  clash  of  neutral  and  belligerent 
pretensions,  will  then  produce  war  with  America.  Then  come 
expeditions  to  Canada  and  expeditions  to  Java.  The  Cape  of 
Good  Hope  must  be  garrisoned.  Lisbon  must  be  defended.  Let 
us  suppose  the  best.  That  best  must  be,  a  long  conflict,  a  dear- 
bought  victory,  a  great  addition  to  a  debt  already  most  burthen- 
some,  fresh  taxes,  and  fresh  discontents.  All  these  are  events 
which  may  not  improbably  happen  under  any  government — events 
which  the  next  month  may  bring  forth — events,  against  which  no 
minister,  however  able  and  honest,  can  with  perfect  certainty 
provide, — but  which  Ministers,  whose  policy  should  exasperate  the 
people  of  Ireland,  would  almost  unavoidably  bring  upon  us.  A 


ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827.  35 

Cabinet  formed  by  the  Ex-ministers  could  scarcely  exist  for  a  year, 
without  incensing  the  lower  classes  of  the  English  to  frenzy,  by 
giving  them  up  to  the  selfish  tyranny  of  its  aristocratical  sup 
porters,  without  driving  Ireland  into  rebellion,  and  without 
tempting  France  to  war. 

There  is  one  hope,  and  one  hope  only  for  our  country ;  and 
that  hope  is  in  a  liberal  Administration, — in  an  Administration 
which  will  follow  with  cautious,  but  with  constantly  advancing  steps, 
the  progress  of  the  public  mind  ;  which,  by  promptitude  to  redress 
practical  grievances,  will  enable  itself  to  oppose  with  authority  and 
effect,  the  propositions  of  turbulent  theorists  ;  which  by  kindness 
and  fairness  in  all  its  dealings  with  the  People,  will  entitle  itself  to 
their  confidence  and  esteem. 

The  state  of  England  at  the  present  moment  bears  a  close 
resemblance  to  that  of  France  at  the  time  when  Turgot  was  called 
to  the  head  of  affairs.  Abuses  were  numerous ;  public  burdens 
heavy  ;  a  spirit  of  innovation  was  abroad  among  the  people.  The 
philosophical  minister  attempted  to  secure  the  ancient  institutions, 
by  amending  them.  The  mild  reforms  which  he  projected,  had 
they  been  carried  into  execution,  would  have  conciliated  the  people, 
and  saved  from  the  most  tremendous  of  all  commotions  the  church, 
the  aristocracy,  and  the  throne.  But  a  crowd  of  narrow-minded 
nobles,  ignorant  of  their  own  interest,  though  solicitous  for  nothing 
else,  the  Newcastles  and  the  Salisburys  of  France,  began  to  tremble 
for  their  oppressive  franchises.  Their  clamours  overpowered  the 
mild  good  sense  of  a  king  who  wanted  only  firmness  to  be  the 
best  of  sovereigns.  The  minister  was  discarded  for  councillors 
more  obsequious  to  the  privileged  orders ;  and  the  aristocracy  and 
clergy  exulted  in  their  success. 

Then  came  a  new  period  of  profusion  and  misrule.  And  then, 
swiftly,  like  an  armed  man,  came  poverty  and  dismay.  The  accla,- 
mations  of  the  nobles,  and  the  Te  Deums  of  the  church,  grew 
fainter  and  fainter.  The  very  courtiers  muttered  disapprobation. 


36  ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827. 

The  ministers  stammered  out  feeble  and  inconsistent  counsels. 
But  all  other  voices  were  soon  drowned  in  one,  which  every 
moment  waxed  louder  and  more  terrible, — in  the  fierce  and  tumul 
tuous  roar  of  a  great  people,  conscious  of  irresistible  strength, 
maddened  by  intolerable  wrongs,  and  sick  of  deferred  hopes  I 
That  cry,  so  long  stifled,  now  rose  from  every  corner  of  France, 
made  itself  heard  in  the  presence-chamber  of  her  king,  in  the 
saloons  of  her  nobles,  and  in  the  refectories  of  her  luxurious 
priesthood.  Then,  at  length,  concessions  were  made  which  the 
subjects  of  Louis  the  Fourteenth  would  have  thought  it  impious 
even  to  desire, — which  the  most  factious  opponent  of  Louis  the 
Fifteenth  had  never  ventured  to  ask, — which,  but  a  few  years 
before,  would  have  been  received  with  ecstacies  of  gratitude.  But 
it  was  too  late  ! 

The  imprisoned  genie  of  the  Arabian  Tales,  during  the  early 
period  of  his  confinement,  promised  wealth,  empire,  and  super 
natural  powers,  to  the  man  who  should  extricate  him.  But  when 
he  had  waited  long  in  vain,  mad  with  rage  at  the  continuance  of 
his  captivity,  he  vowed  to  destroy  his  deliverer  without  mercy  ! 
Such  is  the  gratitude  of  nations,  exasperated  by  misgovernment, 
to  rulers  who  are  slow  to  concede.  The  first  use  which  they  make 
of  freedom  is  to  avenge  themselves  on  those  who  have  been  so 
slow  to  grant  it. 

Never  was  this  disposition  more  remarkably  displayed  than  at 
the  period  of  which  we  speak.  Abuses  were  swept  away  with 
unsparing  severity.  The  royal  prerogatives,  the  feudal  privileges, 
the  provincial  distinctions,  were  sacrificed  to  the  passions  of  the 
people.  Every  thing  was  given ;  and  every  thing  was  given  in 
vain.  Distrust  and  hatred  were  not  to  be  thus  eradicated  from 
the  minds  of  men  who  thought  that  they  were  not  receiving, 
favors  but  extorting  rights ;  and  that,  if  they  deserved  blame,  it 
was  not  for  their  insensibility  to  tardy  benefits,  but  for  their 
forgetfulnesa  of  past  oppression. 


ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827.  37 

What  followed  was  the  necessary  consequence  of  such  a  state  of 
feeling.  The  recollection  of  old  grievances  made  the  people  sus 
picious  and  cru^l.  The  fear  of  popular  outrages  produced  emigra 
tions,  intrigues  with  foreign  courts,  and,  finally,  a  general  war. 
Then  came  the  barbarity  of  fear ;  the  triple  despotism  of  the 
clubs,  the  committees,  and  the  commune ;  the  organized  anarchy, 
the  fanatical  atheism,  the  scheming  and  far-sighted  madness,  the 
butcheries  of  the  Chatelet,  and  the  accursed  marriages  of  the 
Loire.  The  whole  property  of  the  nation  changed  hands.  Its 
best  and  wisest  citizens  were  banished  or  murdered.  Dungeons 
were  emptied  by  assassins  as  fast  as  they  were  filled  by  spies. 
Provinces  were  made  desolate.  Towns  were  unpeopled.  Old 
things  passed  away.  All  things  became  new. 

The  paroxysm  terminated.  A  singular  train  of  events  restored 
the  house  of  Bourbon  to  the  French  throne.  The  exiles  have 
returned.  But  they  have  returned  as  the  few  survivors  of  the 
deluge  returned  to  a  world  in  which  they  could  recognise  nothing ; 
in  which  the  valleys  had  been  raised,  and  the  mountains  depressed, 
and  the  courses  of  the  rivers  changed, — in  which  sand  and  sea 
weed  had  covered  the  cultivated  fields  and  the  walls  of  imperial 
cities.  They  have  returned  to  seek  in  vain,  amidst  the  mouldering 
relics  of  a  former  system,  and  the  fermenting  elements  of  a  new 
creation,  the  traces  of  any  remembered  object.  The  old  boun 
daries  are  obliterated.  The  old  laws  are  forgotten.  The  old  titles 
have  become  laughing-  stocks.  The  gravity  of  the  parliaments, 
and  the  pomp  of  the  hierarchy;  the  doctors  whose  disputes 
agitated  the  Sorbonne,  and  the  embroidered  multitude  whose 
footsteps  wore  out  the  marble  pavements  of  Versailles, — all  have 
disappeared.  The  proud  and  voluptuous  prelates  who  feasted  on 
silver,  and  dozed  amidst  curtains  of  massy  velvet,  have  been 
replaced  by  curates  who  undergo  every  drudgery  and  every  humi 
liation  for  the  wages  of  lackeys.  To  those  gay  and  elegant  nobles 
who  studied  military  science  as  a  fashionable  accomplishment,  and 


85  ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827. 

expected  military  rank  as  a  part  of  their  birthright,  have  succeeded 
men  born  in  lofts  and  cellars ;  educated  in  the  half-naked  ranks 
of  the  revolutionary  armies,  and  raised  by  ferocious  valour  and  self- 
taught  skill,  to  dignities  with  which  the  coarseness  of  their  manners 
and  language  forms  a  grotesque  contrast.  The  government  may 
amuse  itself  by  playing  at  despotism,  by  reviving  the  names  and 
aping  the  style  of  the  old  court— as  Helenus  in  Epirus  consoled 
himself  for  the  lost  magnificence  of  Troy,  by  calling  his  brook 
Xanthus,  and  the  entrance  of  his  little  capital  the  Sca3an  gate. 
But  the  law  of  entail  is  gone,  and  cannot  be  restored.  The  liberty 
of  the  press  is  established,  and  the  feeble  struggles  of  the  minister 
cannot  permanently  put  it  down.  The  Bastile  is  fallen,  and  can 
never  more  rise  from  its  ruins.  A  few  words,  a  few  ceremonies,  a 
few  rhetorical  topics,  make  up  all  that  remains  of  that  system 
which  was  founded  so  deeply  by  the  policy  of  the  house  of  Valois, 
and  adorned  so  splendidly  by  the  pride  of  Louis  the  Great. 

Is  this  a  romance  ?  Or  is  it  a  faithful  picture  of  what  has  lately 
been  in  a  neighboring  land — of  what  may  shortly  be  within  the 
borders  of  our  own  ?  Has  the  warning  been  given  in  vain  ?  Have 
our  Mannerses  and  Clintons  so  soon  forgotten  the  fate  of  houses  as 
wealthy  and  as  noble  as  their  own  ?  Have  they  forgotten  how 
the  tender  and  delicate  woman, — the  woman  who  would  not  set 
her  foot  on  the  earth  for  tenderness  and  delicateness,  the  idol  of 
gilded  drawing-rooms,  the  pole-star  of  crowded  theatres,  the 
standard  of  beauty,  the  arbitress  of  fashion,  the  patroness  of 
genius — was  compelled  to  exchange  her  luxurious  and  dignified 
ease  for  labour  and  dependence ;  the  sighs  of  dukes  and  the  flattery 
of  bowing  abbes  for  the  insults  of  rude  pupils  and  exacting 
mothers ; — perhaps,  even  to  draw  an  infamous  and  miserable  sub 
sistence  from  those  charms  which  had  been  the  glory  of  royal 
circles — to  sell  for  a  morsel  of  bread  her  reluctant  caresses  and  her 
haggard  smiles — to  be  turned  over  from  a  garret  to  a  hospital,  and 
from  a  hospital  to  a  parish  vault  ?  Have  they  forgotten  how  the 


ENGLISH     POLITICS     IN     1827.  39 

• 

gallant  and  luxurious  nobleman,  sprung  from  illustrious  ancestors, 
marked  out  from  his  cradle  for  the  highest  honours  of  the  state  and 
of  the  army,  impatient  of  control,  exquisitely  sensible  of  the 
slightest  affront,  with  all  his  high  spirit,  his  polished  manners,  his 
voluptuous  habits,  was  reduced  to  request,  with  tears  in  his  eyes, 
credit  for  half-a-crown, — to  pass  day  after  day  in  hearing  the 
auxiliary  verbs  misrecited,  or  the  first  page  of  Telemaque  miscon 
strued,  by  petulant  boys,  who  infested  him  with  nicknames  and 
caricatures,  who  mimicked  his  foreign  accent,  and  laughed  at  his 
thread-bare  coat.  Have  they  forgotten  all  this  ?  God  grant  that 
they  may  never  remember  it  with  unavailing  self-accusation,  when 
desolation  shall  have  visited  wealthier  cities  and  fairer  gardens  ; — 
when  Manchester  shall  be  as  Lyons,  and  Stowe  as  Chantilly ; — 
when  he  who  now,  in  the  pride  of  rank  and  opulence,  sneers  at 
what  we  have  written  in  the  bitter  sincerity  of  our  hearts,  shall  be 
thankful  for  a  porringer  of  broth  at  the  door  of  some  Spanish 
convent,  or  shall  implore  some  Italian  money-lender  to  advance 
another  pistole  on  his  George  ! 


40 


STATE   OF   PARTIES.* 

[A  Sequel  to  the  Preceding  Article.] 
Spirit    of  Party.    8vo.    London,    1827. 

WE  design  to  make  here  a  few  observations,  by  way  of  supple 
ment  to  the  Article  in  our  last  Number,  which  has  been  in  several 
particulars!,  we  are  sorry  to  find,  exceedingly  misunderstood  in 
some  respectable  quarters,  as  it  has  certainly,  we  are  not  surprised 
to  remark,  been  grossly  misrepresented  in  others  of  a  widely  differ 
ent  description. 

The  State  of  Parties,  and  the  condition  of  public  affairs  gene 
rally,  is,  in  some  respects,  materially  different  from  anything  ever 
known  in  this  country.  For  some  years,  indeed  ever  since  the 
termination  of  the  wars  arising  out  of  the  French  Revolution,  the 
opinions  favoured  by  sound  reason,  and  avouched  by  the  practical 
test  of  experience,  upon  all  subjects  of  foreign  and  domestic  policy, 
had  been  making  a  steady  and  sure,  because  a  quiet  and  peaceful 
progress  among  the  more  intelligent  parts  of  the  community.  As 
intelligence  spread  wider  by  the  diffusion  of  knowledge,  the  dis 
semination  of  those  opinions  became  more  .enlarged,  and  their 
operation  upon  all  classes  of  society  more  efficacious.  They  had 
been  making  considerable  advances  both  in  France  and  England, 
during  the  period  between  the  American  and  the  French  Revolu 
tions,  But  the  latter  event  had  cruelly  disappointed  in  its  progress 

*  Edinburgh  Review,  October,  1827. 

f  Among  other  mistakes,  we  find  it  ascribed  to  various  persons,  eminent 
statesmen  and  others,  who,  if  they  have  ever  seen  it,  which  we  know  not, 
assuredly  never  oould  have  seen  it  before  it  was  published. 


STATE     OF     PARTIES.  41 

the  hopes  raised  by  its  first  fair  prospects  ;  and  the  horrors  of  the 
times  of  Anarchy,  followed  by  the  military  tyranny  of  Napoleon, 
and  the  dreadful  wars  in  which  he  involved  his  country  and  Europe, 
otherwise  so  deeply  his  debtors,  had  stampt  all  change  with  the  most 
hateful  characters,  and  accustomed  men  to  confound  reform  with 
rebellion,  reckoning  the  friend  of  freedom  and  improvement,  one 
who  would  sacrifice  order  and  peace,  and  all  established  institu 
tions,  to  wild  extravagant  speculation — a  victim  as  it  were  to  the 
love  of  change  for  its  own  sake.  The  fall  of  Napoleon,  and  the 
peace  that  followed  the  French  Restoration,  finally  put  down  those 
groundless  prejudices  against  the  safest  course  of  policy,  and  made 
an  end  of  the  calumnies  so  long  heaped  upon  the  best  friends  of 
order  and  existing  establishments — those  who,  by  tranquil  amend 
ments,  would  destroy  all  the  purchase  that  revolutionists  ever  can 
have  whereby  to  work  their  overthrow.  Accordingly,  the  natural 
course  of  education  and  knowledge  has  silently  been  producing  its 
fruits  ;  sound  and  enlightened  views  of  policy  have  been  gaining 
ground ;  truth,  no  longer  counteracted  in  its  progress,  has  been 
making  way  everywhere ;  and  wisdom,  no  longer  overawed  by 
noisy  clamour  or  childish  fears,  has  been  teaching  her  lessons  to  a 
willing  generation. 

For  some  years  of  the  period  on  which  we  are  looking  back, 
the  Government  of  this  country  was  intrusted  to  the  management 
of  men,  who  gave  it  a  direction  widely  different  from  the  course 
of  public  opinion,  and  conducted  it  upon  all  the  principles  of  the 
most  narrow  and  vicious  policy,  as  if  they  alone,  and  the  engine 
in  their  hands,  stood  still  amidst  the  general  advance  of  the  age. 
While  the  Finances,  and  indeed  all  the  internal  affairs  of  the 
State,  were  under  the  guidance  of  persons,  whose  notions  were  the 
refuse  of  the  antiquated  school ;  the  Foreign  Minister,  though  not 
by  nature  deficient  in  liberal  feelings,  and  certainly  gifted  with  no 
common  talents,  and,  above  all,  with  great  sagacity,  had,  unhappily 
for  his  country  and  for  his  reputation,  become  intimately  connected 


42  STATE     OF     PARTIES. 

with  the  Continental  Sovereigns  and  their  chief  Statesmen,  and 
had  imbibed  from  this  intercourse  a  prejudice  against  free  opinions, 
and  a  dislike  of  Constitutional  Government,  so  strong  as  almost  to 
renew  in  our  political  system,  the  exploded  terrors  about  Jacobin 
ism  and  French  principles.  All  improvements  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  Continental  States  were  to  be  discountenanced  as  revolu 
tionary  :  everything  that  could  lead  to  a  change,  how  slowly  and 
peaceably  soever,  was  to  be  resisted :  the  strong  arm  of  absolute 
power  was  to  be  deemed  the  only  security  for  the  public  peace ; 
and  the  iron  hand  of  military  force,  the  only  means  by  which  that 
arm  could  work  its  destined  end.  These  principles  soon  embodied 
themselves  in  the  famous  League  so  universally  dreaded  at  first, 
then  detested,  and  since  despised,  under  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Alliance.  Professing  only  to  have  the  intention  of  keeping  the 
peace,  those  combined  Princes,  extending  their  union  over  almost 
all  Europe,  guaranteed  to  each  other,  not  only  the  integrity  of  their 
dominions,  but  the  unchanged  existence  of  all  their  internal  insti 
tutions  ;  and  some  of  them  having  succeeded  in  reconquering  their 
dominions  from  Napoleon,  by  the  aid  of  their  people,  to  whom 
they  had  promised  a  Representative  Government,  as  the  appropri 
ate  reward  ..of  a  constancy  worthy  of  freemen,  Europe,  with 
astonishment,  saw  those  very  Monarchs  become  parties  to  this 
combination  against  all  improvement,  as  if  for  the  very  purpose 
of  preventing  themselves  from  redeeming  pledges  so  sacred,  and 
which  had  passed  for  so  mighty  a  consideration.  The  wonder, 
however,  stopt  not  here :  The  leagued  Sovereigns  made  war  at  their 
pleasure  to  prevent  the  •  peace  from  being  disturbed.  Wherever  a 
Prince  was  compelled  or  induced  to  adopt  free  institutions,  the 
Allies  marched  an  army  to  restore  his  absolute  authority  and  his 
people's  subjection ;  and  the  formal  accession  of  England  was 
alone  wanting  to  make  the  sway  of  this  grand  nuisance  universal ; 
nay,  to  extend  its  claims,  which  were  once  actually  preferred,  over 
our  own  country.  In  all  these  unheard  of  proceedings,  infinitely 


STATE     OF     PARTIES.  43 

more  dangerous  to  National  Independence  than  the  wildest  fury 
of  the  French  Republic,  or  the  mightiest  projects  of  Napoleon 
himself,  it  was  a  miserable  sight  to  behold  England,  once  the 
patroness  of  public  freedom, — the  enemy  of  aggression, — the 
refuge  of  all  oppressed  nations,  stoop  to  become  the  willing  wit 
ness,  and  even  the  unresisting  tool  of  the  most  flagitious  conspiracy 
the  world  ever  saw,  excepting,  perhaps,  the  high  crime  last  perpe 
trated  by  the  same. despotic  Princes,  the  partition  of  Poland.  Yet 
so  it  was  ;  and  such  was  the  price  we  paid  for  our  Minister  having 
acted  as  our  Ambassador,  and  kept  the  high  company  of  absolute 
Monarchs,  and  their  unconstitutional  and  irresponsible  counsellors. 
The  tone,  too,  of  these  foreign  Courts  was  imported  into  our  Par 
liament  and  our  Cabinet ;  it  became  customary  to  deride  everything 
free  and  liberal  as  new-fangled,  and  low,  and  dangerous  to  good 
government;  men  extolled  all  the  little  drivelling  notions  of 
Austrian  Hof-raths  and  Jfriegs-raths,  as  sound,  old,  well- wearing 
maxims,  and  laughed  at  the  doctrines  of  the  New-School,  as  wholly 
unknown  to  the  warriors  of  Leipsic  and  Waterloo,  or  the  negotia 
tors  of  Vienna  and  of  Aix.  It  is  true,  that  our  official  statesmen 
had  all  this  pleasantry  to  themselves ;  they  made  no  converts  in 
the  country  ;  they  found  neither  sympathy  nor  support  from  the 
people  ;  and  as  often  as  they  attempted  in  Parliament  to  countenance 
their  favourite  topic,  the  sorry  reception  they  met  with,  seemed 
adjusted  in  a  nice  proportion  to  its  intrinsic  merit,  and  the  talents 
by  which  it  was  recommended. 

Meanwhile,  upon  questions  of  internal  policy,  the  liberal  feelings 
of  the  country  generally  prevailed,  even  in  Parliamentary  divisions, 
over  the  narrow  views  of  the  Court.  One  after  another,  the  Go 
vernment  abandoned  many  of  the  most  pernicious  taxes  and  lines 
of  mercantile  policy,  and  at  length,  after  long  resistance,  it  adopted 
sound  principles  upon  the  important  subject  of  reform  in  the 
system  and  administration  of  the  laws.  While  its  opponents  were 
preparing  new  measures,  and  expecting  additional  triumphs  at 


41  STATE     OF     PARTIES. 

home  ;  while  its  allies  abroad  were  about  to  carry  their  aggressions 
on  all  national  independence  farther  than  ever,  by  the  most  iniqui 
tous  of  all  their  measures  for  extirpating  liberty ;  the  melancholy 
event  of  the  minister's  decease,  who  had  erred,  we  believe,  much 
more  from  want  of  foresight  and  deliberate  reflection  in  the  early 
stage  of  the  intercourse,  than  from  any  evil  designs  towards  liberty 
at  any  period,  gave  a  new  and  happier  aspect  to  the  face  of  affairs 
in  this  country,  as  far  as  the  Government  was  concerned,  and 
eventually  produced  a  very  sensible  change  for  the  better  in  the 
policy  of  other  powers,  and  in  the  prospects  of  a  large  portion  of 
the  world.  He  was  succeeded  by  a  statesman  of  far  more  enlarged 
views,  and  more  brilliant  talents,  his  inferior  certainly  in  some  of 
the  qualities  calculated  to  gain  a  following  in  Parliament,  but 
worthy  of  all  acceptation  in  comparison  of  him,  because  uncon 
nected  with  the  enemies  of  freedom,  and  committed  to  none  of 
the  worst  principles  at  least  of  later  times,  by  which  improvement 
had  been  stifled  abroad  and  obstructed  at  home.  Catastrophes 
very  different  indeed,  but  almost  equally  sudden,  have  now  deprived 
the  country  of  both  those  statesmen ;  and  we  may  be  enabled 
calmly  to  reflect  upon  their  conduct  and  their  merits,  without 
heaping  on  the  one  unmerited  obloquy,  though,  unfortunately  for 
his  fame,  he  died  when  events  had  brought  the  policy  he  was  con 
nected  with  to  its  lowest  pitch  in  public  consideration, — without 
raising  altars  to  the  other's  memory,  because  we  lost  him  when  the 
system  he  maintained  looked  the  fairest  in  all  men's  eyes,  and 
dazzled  them  into  a  forgetfulness  of  all  that  had  happened 
before. 

The  progress  of  liberal  opinions  was  immediately  and  rapidly 
accelerated  by  the  conduct,  and  still  more  by  the  language,  of  the 
Government  in  1823  and  the  subsequent  years.  In  a  few  months 
the  disgraceful  connexion  with  the  Holy  Alliance  was  at  an  end, 
and  the  further  proceedings  of  that  combination  were  so  far 
checked,  that  it  can  hardly  now  be  said  to  have  any  real  existence. 


STATE     OF     PARTIES.  45 

The  recognition  of  the  new  commonwealths  in  South  America, 
and  the  establishment  of  political  as  well  as  mercantile  relations 
with  them,  very  soon  followed ;  the  odious  provisions  of  the  Alien 
Bill  were  suffered  to  expire,  and  a  restriction  of  little  or  no  moment 
substituted  in  their  place  ;  and  the  most  decisive  steps  were  taken 
to  defend  Portugal,  harassed  by  the  intrigues,  and  menaced  by  the 
arms  of  Spain,  for  the  crime  of  having  accepted  a  Constitutional 
Government.  At  home,  the  policy  so  long  recommended  by  the 
Liberal  Party  both  in  and  out  of  doors,  was  as  steadily  and  effec 
tually  pursued,  as  that  which  they  had  maintained  to  be  the  sound, 
and  British,  and  statesman-like  view  of  Foreign  Affairs.  Oppres 
sive  and  impolitic  taxes  were  repealed,  among  others  the  duties  on 
law  proceedings ;  the  principles  of  Free  Trade  were  adopted  in 
many  important  cases,  and  the  way  was  paved  for  extending  them 
to  all  the  parts  of  our  mercantile  system  ;  some  of  the  reforms  in 
the  Criminal  Law,  which  Sir  Samuel  Romilly  had  so  long  in  vain 
laboured  to  recommend,  and  which  had  been  resisted  with  too  much 
success  till  1819,  when  Sir  James  Mackintosh,  his  follower  in  the 
same  honourable  career,  carried  a  Committee  for  examining  the  state 
of  that  Code,  were,  on  the  principles  of  those  enlightened  indivi 
duals,  taken  up  by  their  former  antagonists,  and  received  the  sanc 
tion  of  the  Legislature ;  nay,  so  harmless  was  the  name  of  judicial 
reform  become,  and  so  popular  its  pursuit  with  both  court  and 
country,  that  the  same  persons  stopt  not  there,  but  introduced 
improvements,  though  more  limited  in  principle,  into  other  branches 
of  jurisprudence. 

The  effects  produced  by  this  fortunate  and  unexpected  change 
in  the  conduct  of  the  Ministry,  upon  the  state  and  distribution  of 
parties,  both  in  Parliament  and  in  the  Country,  were  such  as 
might  have  been  expected,  unless  men  had  lost  all  regard  for  prin 
ciple  and  consistency  in  their  personal  animosities,  or  in  the  worst 
abuse  of  party  feelings.  The  Opposition  lent  their  warm  support 
to  Government,  as  often  as  they  saw  a  disposition  to  pursue  the 


46  STATE     OF     PARTIES. 

sound  and  enlightened  policy  always  recommended  by  them.  Far 
from  the  despicable,  unprincipled  inclination  to  discover  faults  in 
the  manner  of  executing  designs  often  suggested  by  themselves, 
and  thus  apparently  save  their  consistency  as  to  measures,  while 
they  continued  their  opposition  to  the  men,  they  were  even  above 
the  feeling  of  jealousy  which  would  have  kept  inferior  minds  from 
coming  forward  to  grace  the  triumphs  of  a  rival ;  they  scarcely 
ever,  certainly  never  but  where  the  necessity  of  explaining  their 
conduct  to  the  public  required  it,  reminded  either  the  Government 
or  the  country,  how  long  they  had  supported  the  policy,  now 
luckily  adopted  in  the  quarter  most  likely  to  give  it  effect.  All 
the  while,  (and  we  speak  of  some  years,  certainly  of  the  Sessions 
1824,  1825,  and  1826,  but  in  not  a  few  particulars  of  1823  too,) 
there  was  nothing  that  indicated  the  least  understanding  between 
the  parties  who  had  been  so  long  opposed  to  each  other  ;  no  appear 
ance  of  any  intercourse  in  private  among  their  chiefs ;  and  w« 
believe  it  is  universally  understood  that  no  arrangement,  nor  any 
treaty  for  an  arrangement,  had  been  so  much  as  talked  of  in  any 
political  circle  of  the  least  importance.  Indeed  one  symptom  must 
remove  all  suspicion  on  this  head  ;  whensoever  the  measures  of 
the  Ministry  were  objectionable,  their  adversaries  were  at  their 
post,  as  ready  as  ever  for  the  strife ;  few  more  vehement  debates, 
or  with  more  party  animation,  have  ever  been  carried  on,  than  the 
discussions  on  the  Catholic  Association  in  1825  ;  and  even  trivial 
matters,  from  time  to  time,  furnished  fuel  to  maintain  the  heats 
which  contending  parties  engender,  though  oftentimes  separated 
by  a  narrow  space. 

Nevertheless,  with  the  symptoms  which  we  have  just  noted, 
near  observers  did  not  fail  to  mark  others,  that  seemed  to  give 
prognostics  of  greater  change,  and  more  permanent  co-operation. 
The  Ministry  were  known  to  be  much  divided  among  themselves. 
One  class  supported  the  claims  of  the  Catholics,  as  essentially  just 
in  themselves,  and  maintained  the  expediency  of  complying  with 


STATE     OF     PARTIES.  47 

them,  as  necessary  for  the  safety  of  the  empire.  Another  refused 
upon  any  account  even  to  consider  this  great  question  ;  they  had 
taken  their  ground  upon  it,  and  from  that  ground  they  announced 
Jthat  no  lapse  of  time,  no  change  of  circumstances,  could  move 
them.  There  seemed  here  a  sufficient  source  of  disunion  to  make 
a  disruption  of  the  Ministry  not  merely  a  natural,  but  an  unavoida 
ble  event.  But  this  was  very  far  from  being  the  only  ground. 
The  same  parties  were  divided  upon  all  the  great  principles  of 
foreign  and  domestic  policy,  which  having  been  discountenanced 
by  the  late  Foreign  Minister,  both  in  the  Cabinet,  in  his  negotia 
tions,  and  in  Parliament,  were  now  become  the  favourite  maxims 
of  his  successor;  but  on  these  principles,  the  individuals  who 
differed  with  him,  were  not  so  inflexible  as  upon  the  question, 
whether  Ireland  should  be  saved  to  the  empire  ;  and  opposing  him 
on  this,  on  those  they  only  thwarted  him,  leaving  the  liberal  course, 
in  all  or  almost  all  cases  but  the  most  important,  to  be  pursued 
by  the  State.  That  their  assent  was  most  reluctant;  that  it 
often  was  extorted  by  the  apprehension  of  breaking  up  the  Minis 
try  ;  that  matters  were  frequently  kept  quiet  by  the  common  unwil 
lingness  of  all  parties  to  press  them  to  extremities — not  seldom  by 
the  controlling  influence  either  of  the  first  person  in  the  Ministry, 
or  the  first  person  in  the  State — cannot  any  longer  be  doubted. 
But  in  the  course  of 'these  altercations  two  parties  had  been  formed, 
and  differing  in  all  questions,  constant  dissent  had  produced  fre 
quent  dissensions ;  and,  as  always  happens  in  such  cases,  those 
dissensions  were  not  confined  to  things,  but  extended  to  persons, 
until  as  much  of  animosity,  probably,  and  as  little  mutual  good 
will,  prevailed  between  the  two  parties  that  divided  the  Cabinet, 
as  are  found  to  subsist  in  ordinary  times  between  the  parties  that 
divide  the  senate  or  the  nation. 

Another  symptom  not  unconnected  with  this,  was  now  more 
and  more  perceptible.  The  Opposition  became  less  vehement,  less 
unremitting,  in  proportion  as  the  breach  was  supposed  to  widen  in 


48  STATE     OF     PARTIES. 

the  Ministry  ;  and  their  support  in  great  part,  their  courtesief 
entirely,  were  now  given  with  a  kind  of  reserve  or  discrimina 
tion  :  it  was  to  the  '  Liberal  part  of  the  Government '  that  they 
lent  their  aid ;  it  was  to  them  they  looked  for-  the  reform  of 
abuses  ;  it  was  in  their  sound  principles  that  they  reposed  con 
fidence  for  the  future.  To  give  them  encouragement  in  their  wise 
and  honourable  course,  became  an  object  of  importance  for  the 
good  of  the  country ;  and  aware  how  their  opponents  in  the  Cabi 
net  endeavoured  to  hinder  their  progress,  the  Opposition  employed 
all  means  for  comforting  and  strengthening  their  hands,  and 
enabling  them  to  overcome  the  common  enemy. 

The  year  1826  began  with  the  measures  rendered  necessary 
by  the  commercial  distress ;  and  the  Liberal  Parties  on  both 
sides  of  the  House  agreed  fully  in  the  support  of  them.  A  Ses 
sion  followed,  remarkable  for  nothing  so  much  as  its  want  of 
interest ;.  and  there  had  not  been  within  the  memory  of  man, 
so  few  points  of  difference  between  the  contending  parties  in 
both  Houses  of  Parliament.  The  General  Election  followed,  and 
a  marked  distinction  was  everywhere  to  be  traced  in  the  con 
duct  of  the  Opposition  towards  the  Liberal,  and  towards  the 
Illiberal  l  portion  of  his  Majesty's  Government.'  The  new  Par 
liament  met,  and  the  conduct  pursued  in  Portugal,  the  grounds 
upon  which  it  was  defended,  and  the  language  so  worthy  of 
constitutional  Ministers,  in  which  that  defence  was  couched,  drew 
forth  the  most  cordial  and  unqualified  approbation  from  the  Oppo 
sition  Leaders.  The  period  of  the  Christmas  recess  arrived,  and  it 
is  perfectly  certain  that  up  to  that  time  no  arrangement  whatever 
had  been  made,  or  even  propounded,  or  discoursed  of  between 
the  two  great  portions  of  the  Liberal  Party,  those  in  office,  and 
those  in  opposition. 

Immediately  after  the  recess,  the  noLle  Lord  at  the  head  of 
the  Government  was  stricken  with  a  grievous  malady,  which 
compelled  him  in  a  few  weeks  to  resign  his  situation.  In  what 


STATE     OF     PARTIES.  49 

way  his  place  should  be  supplied,  was  a  question  calculated  to 
trouble  his  colleagues  at  all  times  ;  for  he  had  great  weight  with 
them  ;  and  though,  on  Irish  questions,  he  adopted  the  illiberal 
views  of  one  party  to  the  uttermost  extent  of  impolicy  and  into 
lerance,  on  other  matters  he  leant  towards  their  adversaries,  or 
at  any  rate,  by  his  personal  consideration  with  all,  and  his 
ancient  intimacy  with  the  leader  of  that  side,  he  was  enabled  to 
preserve  the  Government  from  the  violent  end  it  so  often  seemed 
near  coming  to.  But  if  the  difficulty  would  at  any  time  have 
been  great,  of  finding  a  successor  to  that  noble  person,  it  was 
incalculably  augmented  by  the  present  aspect  of  affairs  abroad, 
and  by  the  new  balance  of  parties.  What  had  been  passing  for 
some  time  in  Parliament,  above  all,  what  had  passed  just  before 
the  recess,  showed  how  infallibly  the  great  body  of  the  Opposition, 
both  in  and  out  of  Parliament,  that  is,  the  only  powerful  party 
in  both  Houses,  and  an  immense  majority  of  all  ranks  in  the 
country,  would  give  their  cordial  support  to  the  liberal  part  of 
the  Cabinet ;  and  it  might  be  safely  predicted,  that  if  Mr.  Can 
ning  were  placed  at  the  head  of  the  Government,  no  remains 
either  of  party  "or  of  personal  animosity  would  interfere  with 
their  desire  to  give  him  and  his  friends,  because  of  the  policy 
they  had  so  wisely  adopted  and  so  ably  patronised,  a  cordial^ 
and,  if  wanted,  a  systematic  support.  It  was  equally  clear,  that 
should  they  be  driven  out  of  the  Ministry,  a  cordial  and  system 
atic  co-operation  would  be  easily  established  between  them  and 
those  who  had  indeed  for  years  been  their  allies.  So  that  while, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  Liberal  part  of  the  Cabinet  could  stand 
more  triumphantly  than  before,  should  the  Illiberal  resign,  these 
had  not  the  most  trifling  chance  of  maintaining  their  ground, 
should  they,  by  taking  the  upper  hand,  drive  their  adversaries 
from  office. 

If  it  be  clear  that  such  was  the  posture  of  affairs,  the  question 
was  manifestly  decided  ;  and  it  only  remained  for  the  opponents 
VOL.  T.  3 


50  STATE     OF     PARTIES. 

of  Mr.  Canning  in  the  Cabinet,  either  to  submit,  or  to  retire, 
should  he  be  placed  by  their  common  Master  at  the  head  of  the 
Government.  He  was  plainly  in  a  situation  to  dictate  his  own 
terms,  while  they  had  no  power  over  him,  either  of  continuing 
to  govern  without  his  assistance,  or  of  opposing  the  Ministry  he 
might  form.  Of  the  two  courses,  submission  and  resignation, 
they  chose  the  latter,  partly  upon  personal  grounds  of  objection 
to  the  individual,  partly  upon  public  principles  which  they  held 
widely  differing  from  his,  and  which  would  have  been  betrayed, 
by  serving  under  one  who  openly  attached  himself  to  the  con 
trary  system.  Accordingly,  after  a  short  interval  spent  in  fruit 
less  negotiation,  and  in  unavailing  attempts  to  form  a  purely 
Tory  Ministry — attempts  wholly  uncountenanced,  it  is  believed, 
by  the  Sovereign,  and  which  the  most  sagacious  of  themselves 
knew  from  the  first  to  be  desperate — they  resigned  in  a  body, 
leaving  his  Majesty  without  advisers,  and  the  country  without  a 
Government. 

Far  be  from  us,  however,  any  design  of  imputing  blame  to 
the  distinguished  persons  who  suddenly,  and,  it  is  said,  without 
any  actual  concert,  took  this  step.  Their  feelings  of  personal 
honour  may  have  justified  it ;  their  differences  of  opinion  upon 
fundamental  points  may  have  required  it.  We  are  quite  aware 
of  the  change  in  the  aspect  of  the  Catholic  Question,  which  the 
substituting  its  zealous  advocate  for  its  determined  opponent, 
as  Prime  Minister,  was  calculated  to  create.  Indeed,  we  can 
much  more  easily  comprehend  the  enemies  of  that  great  mea 
sure  feeling  the  impossibility  of  acting  under  Mr.  Canning  as 
their  leader,  both  in  the  Government  and  the  House  of  Com 
mons,  than  we  can  understand  their  so  long  allowing  him  the 
preponderance  he  had  in  the  Cabinet,  with  the  ostensible  posi 
tion  he  occupied  in  Parliament,  before  Lord  Liverpool's  political 
demise.  But  there  was  one  resignation  not  so  easily  under 
stood  upon  any  of  those  grounds,  and  which  remains  unexplained, 


STATE     OF     PARTIES.  51 

either  by  personal  or  political  disunion  ;  we  mean  Lord  Melville's 
— whose  conduct  in  his  important  office  had  given  satisfaction  ; 
whose  opinions  had  uniformly  been  upon  the  liberal  side  in  all 
questions,  Irish  as  well  as  English ;  and  who  was  not  understood 
to  be  separated,  by  any  dislike,  from  those  whose  principles  were 
his  own.  His  retirement,  therefore,  while  it  was  regretted,  could 
only  be  accounted  for  upon  the  supposition  of  some  punctilious 
notions  of  duty  towards  his  other  colleagues,  or  towards  the  Minis 
try,  in  the  abstract,  with  which  he  had  so  long  been  connected ; 
— notions  certainly  in  nowise  calculated  to  lessen  any  one's  respect 
for  him,  though  all  might  desire  to  see  them  give  way  after  a  sea 
son.  Mr.  Peel's  retirement  wars  also  matter  of  some  regret, 
because  he  had  of  late  shown  a  disposition,  worthy  of  all  encou 
ragement  in  official  characters,  to  probe  abuses  both  in  the  practice 
and  structure  of  our  judicial  system,*  and  had  adopted  some  of 

*  The  Newspapers  have  been  filled  with  some  very  singular  effusions 
during  the  late  progress  of  the  "Western  Circuit,  purporting  to  be  charges 
to  various  Grand  Juries  and  Petit  Juries,  and  addresses  to  prisoners,  both 
before  and  after  conviction,  and  interlocutory  observations  during  the 
course  of  trials.  To  these,  the  name  of  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  Common 
Pleas  is  appended ;  and  the  reader  is  frequently  tempted  to  believe  that 
they  must  be  efforts  of  pleasantry,  as  where  the  learned  Judge  tells  a  con 
vict,  that  '  we  (of  course  meaning  the  prisoner  as  well  as  the  Judge)  are 
much  indebted  to  the  salutary  change  of  the  law,  whereby  the  punish 
ment  is  now  raised  from  seven  to  fourteen  years'  transportation.'  How 
ever,  be  those  productions  genuine  or  not,  we  (and  in  this  plural  the 
learned  Judge  is  certainly  included)  are  not  indebted  to  them  in  any  respect 
whatever.  They  are  distinguished  by  a  great  flow  of  language,  eminently 
spirited,  impressive,  and  often  felicitous;  by  any  one  judicial  quality  they 
assuredly  are  not  marked.  A  great  magistrate,  the  second  in  England, 
travelling  the  second  of  its  circuits,  to  read  lectures  upon  what  ought  to  be 
the  law,  which  he  is  only  sworn  to  administer  as  it  is ;  and  making  every 
charge  the  vehicle  of  unmeasured  praises  heaped  upon  one  of  the  leaders 
of  a  well-k  jown  political  party,  is  not  a  spectacle  which  the  friends  either 
of  the  bench  or  of  the  law  can  take  great  delight  in  beholding.  The 


52  STATE     OF     PAHTIES. 

the  principles,  nay,  fostered  the  ?ery  measures  of  amendment  so 
long  recommended,  with  boundless  learning,  and  unwearied  zeal, 
by  the  chiefs  of  the  Liberal  Party.  But  though  Mr.  Peel's  conduct 
in  leaving  office  might  be  regretted,  it  could  not  by  any  candid 
man  be  blamed  ;  neither  could  the  grounds  of  it  be  misunder 
stood  ;  his  resignation  was  widely  different  from  Lord  Melville's ; 
he  could  not  with  any  regard  to  his  character,  or  with  any  kind 
of  consistency,  have  remained  in  office,  at  least  in  the  Home 
Department,  under  one  so  pledged  to  the  Catholics  as  Mr.  Canning. 
Until  this  question  should  be  settled,  his  retirement  from  power 
seemed  almost  unavoidable,  the  impossibility  of  his  friends  forming 
a  Government  being  admitted  on  all  hands  ;  and  his  wish  to  do  so 
being  to  our  apprehension  more  than  problematical,  as  we  are  con 
fident  his  interest  in  its  being  done  is  anything  but  doubtful ;  for 
upon  almost  all  other  questions  he  has  espoused  the  more  liberal 
policy  of  those  whom  he  left  in  office. 

We  have  now  given  the  plain  story  of  the  late  change,  as  it 
appears  from  facts  known  to  all  the  world  ;  and  we  have  had  no 
occasion  to  invoke  the  aid  of  secret  history  for  the  untying  of 
any  knotty  passages.  Although  it  has  never  been  pretended 
among  all  the  silly  and  the  wilful  mis-statements  which  have  been 
put  forth,  that  any  private  understanding  subsisted  between  the 
Liberal  Ministers  and  the  leaders  of  the  Opposition  previous  to 

absurd  exaggeration  of  all  those  eulogies,  we  are  convinced,  must  be  far 
more  painful  to  the  distinguished  individual  who  is  their  subject  than  to 
any  other  person ;  if  he  is  bepraised  in  respect  of  what  he  has  done,  he  is 
also  lauded  for  attempts  not  quite  successful ;  and  he  is  openly  extolled  for 
what  others  did,  and  not  a  little  for  what  has  never  been  done  by  any  one 
With  reference  to  his  own  share  of  the  gain  derived  from  this  circuit,  he 
may  be  tempted  to  say — '  Pessimum  inimicorum  genus  laudatores' — but  of 
his  panegyrist  he  may  truly  say — 'Satis  eloquentice,  sapientia  parum,'  and 
may  thus  explain  how  he  has  himself  contributed  to  make  of  a  great  Advo 
cate,  a  very  moderate  Judge. 


STATE     OF     PARTIES.  53 

the  Easter  recess,  the  most  groundless  and  even  ridiculous  charges 
were  advanced  of  perfidy  and  intrigue  during  those  holidays, 
sometimes  against  the  Ministers,  sometimes  against  the  Opposition. 
That  not  an  instant  was  lost  in  opening  a  communication  with  the 
chiefs  of  that  party,  when  the  former  Administration  had  been 
broken  up,  is  very  certain ;  and  that  such  a  step  was  as  consistent 
with  the  purest  honour  and  fair  dealing  in  the  one  party,  as  it  was 
with  entire  consistency  in  the  other,  and  perfectly  natural  in  both, 
no  one  who  has  honoured  the  preceding  narrative  with  his  attention 
can  for  a  moment  doubt.  Great  reluctance  was,  however,  shown 
in  the  Opposition  to  take  office.  Some  of  the  new  Ministry  were 
known  to  oppose  the  Catholic  claims ;  some  of  the  leading  Whigs 
felt  it  impossible  to  join  them  officially  ;  and  this  begot  an  unwil 
lingness  in  those  who  felt  no  such  difficulties,  to  become  members 
of  a  Cabinet  divided  on  so  great  a  question,  and  likely  to  be 
opposed  by  so  highly  respected  friends. 

Happily  for  the  country,  happily  for  their  own  reputation  as 
statesmen  of  firm,  consistent,  and  manly  character,  those  scruples 
were  overcome.  A  Cabinet  was  formed,  in  which  the  liberal  part 
of  the  former  Ministry  were  cordially  united  with  the  leading  men 
of  the  Opposition,  and  with  two  or  three  individuals  not  attached 
to  the  same  views  of  policy,  but  whose  very  worst  errors,  as  we 
must  be  allowed  to  call  them,  afforded,  with  their  high*stations,  a 
security  to  the  country  against  any  rash  and  headlong  attempts 
being  made  to  bring  about  changes,  which,  if  gradually  effected, 
may  yet  remedy  all  the  evils  of  our  domestic  situation. 

The  Session  opened  with  much  of  complaint,  and  somewhat  of 
menace.  We  love  not  to  dwell  on  painful  recollections.  We  are 
willing  to  hope  that  calmer  reflection  may  render  the  retrospect 
for  ever  as  unnecessary  as  it  is  unpleasing.  In  a  very  short  time, 
the  attacks  upon  the  new  Ministry  were  left  in  the  hands  of  those, 
of  whom,  wishing  to  speak  with  all  possible  respect,  we  may  be 
permitted  to  say,  that  their  weight  in  the  country,  and  the  place 


64  STATE     OF     PARTIES. 

they  occupy  in  the  annals  of  its  Council,  are  proportioned  to  their 
intrinsic  merits  ;  and  that  their  adversaries  must  always  feel  con 
tentment,  if  they  should  feel  little  pride,  in  being  opposed  to 
their  hostility. 

The  close  of  the  Session  was  speedily  followed  by  the  death  of 
the  Prime  Minister,- — too  early  for  his  country,  though  not  for 
his  own  fame ;  and  the  Sovereign,  in  strict  accordance  with  the 
universal  desire  of  the  people,  directed  the  Government  to  be 
reconstructed  upon  the  same  principle  as  before.  One  change, 
though  not  in  the  Cabinet,  attended  this  event ;  the  command 
of  the  army  was  again  given  to  its  most  distinguished  ornament, 
who  never,  in  our  opinion,  should  have  for  a  day  stooped  from 
the  loftier  height  he  had  scaled  by  his  wisdom,  his  valour,  and  his 
brilliant  fortune,  to  join  in  the  little  details  and  low  intrigues  of 
vulgar  politics.  We  have  said  nothing  of  some  of  the  Ministers 
who  resigned  ;  but  we  suspect  that  no  very  deep  affliction  was 
suffered  by  the  country  from  their  loss.  After  the  very  long  period 
during  which  they  had  lived  in  office,  their  departure  could  hardly 
be  deemed  untimely ;  and  though  one  of  those  veterans  retired 
with  a  great  name,  and  all  of  them  in  the  full  possession  of  their 
faculties,  there  seemed  a  prevailing  disposition,  in  the  public  mind, 
to  express  no  sorrow  for  the  loss,  until  they  saw  whether  they 
could*  be  worse  governed  by  their  successors.  They  sunk  gra 
dually  into  a  kind  of  watching  Opposition — a  corps  of  observa 
tion  ;  and  one  thing  must  be  admitted  on  all  hands,  whatever  opi 
nion  may  be  entertained  of  the  new  Opposition  from  the  recollec 
tion  of  their  past  services,  that  no  man  looked  forward  to  much 
occasion  for  them  in  their  new  capacity,  since  the  new  Ministry 
stands  unrivalled  by  any  former  Government  in  popularity  with 
the  country,  and  surpassed  by  none  in  favour  with  the  Crown. 

*  In  this  country,  we  are  often  puzzled  with  will,  and  shall,  would,  should, 
and  could,  so  we  don't  venture  to  suggest  any  alteration. 


STATE     OF     PARTIES.  55 

It  must  be  evident  to  every  person  of  ordinary  understanding, 
arid  be  admitted  by  any  one  of  moderate  candour,  that,  in  the 
effectual  assistance  which  some  of  the  Opposition  render  to  the 
new  Government,  by  taking  part  in  it  officially,  and  the  disin 
terested,  though  necessarily  less  efficient,  'support  which  others 
give  it  out  of  place,  nothing  is  done  by  either  class  inconsistent 
with  the  strictest  notions  of  party  principle,  or  which,  tried  by 
the  most  rigorous  standard  of  party  duty,  could  be  found  wanting. 
Suppose  the  whole  principles  and  distribution  of  political  parties  to 
have  remained  unaltered  of  late  years,  we  affirm,  nor  indeed  has 
it  ever  been  in  terms  denied,  that  the  late  Coalition  was  framed 
on  the  most  approved  models  known  in  the  best  times  of  our 
history. 

The  only  justification  of  party  unions  has  always  been  found  in 
their  necessity,  sometimes  for  curbing  the  influence  of  the  execu 
tive  power,  sometimes  for  promoting  certain  other  principles  held 
by  the  members  of  such  associations  in  common,  and  deemed  by 
them  essential  to  the  good  of  the  country.  Men  have,  through 
ambition,  or  avarice,  or  the  other  forms  of  selfishness,  abused  this 
privilege,  or  rather  duty  of  public  men  ;  they  have  leagued  them 
selves  together  to  extort  better  terms  from  their  Sovereign,  their 
opponents,  or  the  public;  they  have  in  reality  been  holding  out 
and  keeping  together  for  some  personal  reasons,  and  not  because 
they  differed  from  their  adversaries,  and  agreed  among  themselves 
in  holding  certain  opinions — but  they  were  never  yet  shameless 
enough  to  avow  such  motives :  their  profligacy  has  always  paid 
the  homage  to  political  virtue,  of  pretending  to  act  together 
because  they  concurred  in  maintaining  principles  different  from 
those  of  other  parties.  Even  where  the  ground  of  contention 
seemed  the  most  narrow,  and  reduced  as  it  were  to  a  mere  personal 
point,  they  sedulously  magnified  this  by  all  the  powers  of  refining 
and  sophistry,  if  they  could  put  forward  a  larger  justification,  and 
conceal  the  reason.  Thus,  when  the  great  body  of  the  Whigs,  in 


56  STATE     OF     PARTIES. 

an  evil  hour  for  their  public  reputation  and  their  influence  in  the 
country,  joined  Lord  North  against  Lord  Shelburne,  and  opposed 
the  peace  which  they  had  so  long  been  urging,  they  were  far  from 
admitting  that  the  mere  assumption  of  the  Treasury  by  one  of 
their  number  instigated  them  to  this  ill-omened  step,  much  less 
that  they  had  sacrificed  their  principles  on  the  American  Question 
to  gratify  their  spleen  against  a  former  colleague,  and  obtain  the 
highest  station  of  power.  They  alleged  that  the  new  Minister 
had  changed  his  principles  upon  the  recognition  of  American 
independence ;  that  he  was  resolved  to  screen  Indian  delinquency  ; 
that  he  owed  his  elevation  to  unconstitutional  designs  entertained 
by  the  Court  against  all  the  great  parties  of  the  country,  for  the 
purpose  of  governing  more  absolutely  through  creatures  of  its 
own.  It  was  their  adversaries  who  charged  them  with  personal 
motives,  and  urged  as  an  accusation  against  them,  that  the  appoint 
ment  of  the  Prime  Minister  was  the  real  cause  of  their  secession. 
Does  it  not  follow  from  such  principles,  rather  is  it  not  a  proposi 
tion  of  the  very  same  purport,  that  when  a  body  of  men  originally 
collected  and  banded  against  others  by  a  political  faith,  in  holding 
which  it  differed  from  them,  finds  all  differences  at  an  end,  and 
former  adversaries  acting  upon  its  own  much  cherished  principles, 
a  new  line  of  conduct  ought  straightway  to  be  pursued  ?  Com 
mon  honesty  to  the  country,  as  well  as  a  regard  for  consistency, 
requires  that  there  should  be  an  end  of  the  Opposition,  when 
*there  is  an  end  of  the  only  diversity  that  called  for  it,  or  indeed 
conld  justify  it.  Whoever  would  still  keep  aloof  in  such  circum 
stances,  and  continue  in  Opposition  when  there  is  no  longer  any 
public  ground  of  difference,  plainly  admits  his  real  motives  all 
along  to  have  been  personal  and  selfish,  however  cunningly  he 
may  have  varnished  them  over  with  the  pretence  of  principle.  To 
this  charge  it  is  manifest  the  Whigs  would  have  exposed  them 
selves,  had  they  held  back  from  Mr.  Canning's  party,  whom  they 
had  no  tangible  ground  of  differing  with. 


STATE     OF     PARTIES.  57 

But  we  may  put  the  case  still  more  strongly  upon  mere  party 
grounds.  Coalitions  have  ever  been  held  allowable,  and  some 
times  admitted  to  be  the  duty  of  statesmen,  when  necessary  to 
further  some  great  object  of  public  good.  To  frame  a  strong 
Government  in  1757,  Lord  Chatham's  Ministry  was  formed  out 
of  every  conflicting  party ;  and  it  carried  the  country  to  the 
highest  pitch  of  glory.  This  precedent  was  cited  by  Mr.  Fox  and 
Mr.  Burke  in  defence  of  the  coalition  with  Lord  North ;  and 
though  the  diversity  of  facts  did  not  well  justify  the  application, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  principle  in  proof  of  which  it  was 
referred  to.  The  coalition  sought  by  many,  to  be  effected  between 
Mr.  Fox  and  Mr.  Pitt  in  1784  and  1804,  could  only  be  grounded 
upon  the  necessity  of  giving  the  country  a  good  and  vigorous 
Government;  and  the  junction  of  Lord  Grenville  and  the  Whigs 
in  1804,  and  afterwards  in  office,  was  dictated,  as  it  was  trium 
phantly  defended,  by  their  agreement  on  some  great  questions,  and 
their  disposition  to  sacrifice  lesser  points  of  opinion,  and  all  per 
sonal  considerations,  to  the  important  object  of  promoting  those 
grand  principles  in  which  they  coincided.  But  in  all  these  cases, 
and  in  none  more  than  the  last,  there  were  various  differences  of 
principle  ;  not  only  were  Whig  and  Tory,  Alarmist  and  Reformer, 
to  coalesce ;  but  during  the  war,  and  for  the  sake  of  carrying  it  on 
to  a  better  issue,  they  who  were  the  authors  of  it,  were  united 
with  its  constant  and  sturdy  opponents.  Yet  all  men  approved 
of  the  union,  because  lesser  things  should  yield  to  greater,  and 
upon  one  or  two  great  questions  there  was  a  fortunate  concurrence 
of  opinion.  It  would  be  very  difficult,  however,  in  the  present 
case,  to  find  the  subject  upon  which  the  new  allies  did  not  agree 
— Catholic  Question — Currency — Free  Trade — Judicial  Reform — • 
Foreign  Policy — South  American  Independence — on  all  these  they 
had  for  years  fought  side  by  side ;  on  all  these  they  had  been 
combating  together  against  the  Ministers  who  lately  resigned  ; 
while,  with  the  exception  of  Parliamentary  Reform,  upon  which 

3* 


58  STATE     OF     PARTIES. 

the  members  of  the  same  party  differed  among  themselves,  there 
was  not  a  single  practical  point  of  dissension  to  be  descried.  Any 
two,  almost  any  one  of  those  great  subjects  was  important  enough 
to  justify  a  union,  even  had  the  parties  differed  upon  most  of  the 
others ;  but  when  the  agreement  extended  over  the  whole,  can 
any  man  seriously  maintain  that  it  was  not  their  duty  to  coalesce, 
if  their  cordial  co-operation  could  alone  secure  the  success  of  their 
common  principles,  and  the  exclusion  from  power  of  their  common 
adversaries  ? 

It  has  been  said,  that  there  is  in  the  Cabinet,  as  now  composed, 
an  admixture  of  members  unfavourable  to  the  Catholic  Claims, 
and  reports  have  reached  us  of  very  strong,  but  not  perhaps  very 
well  considered  objections  being  taken  on  this  head.  Beside  our 
former  general  argument,  we  shall  content  ourselves  with  two 
observations  in  reply.  The  first  is,  that  three  members  in  the 
whole  Cabinet,  and  these  in  no  way  connected,  either  with  the 
head  of  the  Administration,  or  with  the  management  of  Irish 
affairs,  do  not  alter  the  features  of  tolerance  and  liberality  impressed 
upon  it  by  the  union  which  has  created  the  rest  of  the  body 
The  other  is,  that  such  a  criticism  proceeds  with  a  strange  air  from 
the  ancient  friends  and  associates  of  Mr.  Fox,  who,  in  1783,  took 
office  with  Lord  Shelburne,  differing  from  him,  as  he  afterwards 
avowed,  on  many  points,  and  extremely  reluctant  ever  to  join  him, 
and  with  Lord  Thurlow,  whom  he  had  all  his  life  been  opposing 
upon  all  points,  and  who  had  held  the  Great  Seal  during  the 
American  war.  But  still  more  marvellous  is  such  a  remark  from 
any  who  held  office  in  Mr.  Fox's  last  Administration  !  Is  it  really 
forgotten  already  how  the  Cabinet  of  1806  was  composed  ?  There 
was  at  its  head  Lord  Grenville — the  colleague  and  kinsman  of  Mr. 
Pitt — the  main  promoter  of  the  first  war,  and  instigator  to  the 
second — the  author  of  the  letter  to  Bonaparte,  which  prolonged  it 
from  1800 — the  staunch  enemy  of  reform — the  avowed  friend 
and  protector  of  the  Wellesleys  in  India.  Against  him  were  to 


STATE     OF     PARTIES.  59 

be  set  Mr.  Fox  and  Mr.  Grey,  peacemakers,  reformers,  managers 
of  Indian  Impeachments.  Then  came  Mr.  Windham  and  Lord 
Fitzwilliam,  the  administrators  of  Mr.  Burke's  fury,  as  their  new 
colleagues  had  often  termed  them,  and  going  as  much  beyond  the 
Grenvilles  in  hatred  of  peace,  as  they  exceeded  the  Foxites  in  fond 
ness  of  war.  It  is  true,  that  all  these  great  men  strenuously  sup 
ported  the  Catholic  Claims  ;  but "  those  claims  were  as  vel^mently 
opposed  by  other  members  of  the  Cabinet,  by  Lord  Ellenborougl^ 
and  by  Lord  Sidmouth,  whose  former  accession  to  office  had  been 
expressly  grounded  upon  his  hostility  to  the  question.  Yet  the 
exigencies  of  the  State  induced  Mr.  Fox  and  Mr.  Grey  to  form 
parts  of  this  Cabinet,  where  the  interest  of  Ireland,  was  so  little 
consulted,  that  by  common  consent  the  subject  was  not  to  be  men 
tioned,  unless  in  order  to  bring  forward  a  small  measure,  no  sooner 
attempted  than  abandoned.  It  is  true,  that  one  great  and  right 
eous  deed  was  done,  in  spite  of  all  the  divisions  which  variegated 
the  aspect  of  this  motley  piece  of  Cabinet-making ;  they  abolished 
the  Slave  Trade ;  but  not  because  they  agreed  upon  this  any  more 
than  upon  those  penal  laws  which  they  left  unrepealed ;  for  Lord 
Sidmouth,  Lord  Moira,  and  Lord  Fitzwilliam,  were  determined 
enemies  of  the  measure,  and  Mr.  Windham  was  perhaps  the  most 
zealous  of  all  its  antagonists,  not  to  be  a  planter.* 

We  have  been  meeting  the  two  opposite  objections  made  to  the 
late  coalition,  by  two  very  different  classes  of  adversaries,  the  High 
Tories,  who  exclaimed  against  it  as  an  unnatural  and  unprincipled 
league  for  power,  at  the  expense  of  constancy ;  and  a  few  much 
respected  members  of  the  old  Whig  party,  whose  accusations  were 
less  precise,  but  who  seemed  to  dislike  it  only  because  persons  once 
their  antagonists  formed  a  branch  of  it ;  an  objection  to  which 

*  It  will  not  be  supposed  that  we  are  painting  the  Administration  of 
1806  as  we  ourselves  view  it :  we  are  showing  in  what  light  the  facts 
would  justify  its  enemies  in  now  representing  it,  upon  the  grounds  on 
which  some  of  its 'members  are  opposing  the  present  Government 


60  STATE     OF     PAKTIES. 

every  coalition  must  be  equally  liable.  The  answer  to  all  these 
attacks  is  plain  and  simple.  The  inconsistency  would  have  been 
in  men  continuing  the  conflict  when  they  were  no  longer  divided 
in  their  sentiments ;  the  unnatural  conduct  would  have  been  for 
men  to  attack  their  natural  allies  and  join  their  natural  enemies  ; 
the  disregard  of  principle  would  have  been  shown  by  those  who 
sacrificed  their  public  duty  to  personal  views,  and  regardless  of 
their  pledged  opinions,  sought  the  gratification  of  personal  feelings, 
not  the  less  personal,  nor  the  more  amiable,  because  they  were 
those  of  hatred,  jealousy,  or  vexation. 

But  suppose  we  come  down  to  a  more  humble  level  in  the 
argument,  and  listen  to  the  suggestion,  why  did  the  Whigs  join 
Mr.  Canning,  when,  by  holding  out,  they  must  have  occasioned  a 
total  change  ?  We  are  far  from  being  satisfied  that  such  a  change 
was  preferable  to  the  united  Ministry ;  we  are  sure  the  union  was 
more  acceptable  to  the  country  as  well  as  to  the  court ;  but  we 
answer  the  question  as  it  is  put,  and  after  the  manner  of  our 
nation,  we  answer  it  by  propounding  another — What  was  to  hinder 
Mr.  Canning  from  joining  his  former  colleagues,  and  submitting  to 
fill  a  second  place,  a  submission  which  the  Whigs  would  then  have 
forced  him  to  ?  If  he  found  himself  disappointed  in  the  estimate 
he  had  formed  of  his  new  allies ;  if  he  found  that  all  their  regard 
for  their  common  principles  could  not  overcome  their  selfish  lust 
of  power,  or  mitigate  their  equally  selfish  hatred  of  him,  had  he 
not  a  right  to  distrust  them,  and  to  prefer  any  government  which 
perpetuated  their  exclusion?  Then,  suppose  he  had  been  driven 
out  of  -office,  was  there  no  chance  of  his  rejoining  his  former  col 
leagues,  and  no  possibility  of  this  union  effecting  at  court  the 
downfall  of  a  party,  which  had  showed  so  little  moderation  as  to 
gain  no  credit  with  the  Sovereign,  and  so  little  regard  for  its  long 
professed  principles,  as  to  lose  all  respect  in  the  country  ?  As  for 
the  only  other  event  that  can  be  stated,  it  may  be  spoken  of,  but 
it  surely  cannot  be  conceived  possible ;  we  allude  to  the  Whigs 


STATE     OF     PARTIES.  61 

joining  those  ministers  who  had  resigned,  and  uniting  with  them 
in  opposing  their  liberal  colleagues.  We  at  once  pronounce  so 
prodigious  an  inconsistency  impossible.  It  would  have  been  aban 
doning  all  their  principles  either  to  storm  the  government,  or  spite 
a  former  opponent,  whose  recent  conduct  upon  all  great  questions 
of  policy  they  had  loudly  applauded.  It  was  as  impossible  for 
them  to  think  of  such  a  course,  as  it  now  would  be  for  those  most 
eminent  and  respected  individuals,  whose  alienation  from  the 
government  we  join  the  whole  country  in  deploring,  to  unite  them 
selves  with  men,  whom  they  differ  from  upon  every  question  of 
public  policy,  and  to  seek  with  them  the  overthrow  of  a  Ministry  ? 
all  whose  principles  they  profess. 

In  the  remarks  which  we  have  made,  nothing,  we  trust,  has 
escaped  us,  tending  to  evince  the  least  disrespect  for  the  principles 
of  party,  so  essential  to  the  existence  of  a  free  government- 
Those  attachments  arising  from  similarity  of  principle,  are  in  truth 
the  very  ground- work  of  our  argument.  They  have  in  all  good 
times,  and  among  the  best  men,  been  held  pure  and  patriotic  bonds 
of  union  ;  honourable  to  the  individuals,  profitable  to  the  common 
wealth.  Nevertheless,  it  is  impossible  to  deny,  that  in  proportion 
as  the  body  of  the  people  become  more  enlightened,  and  take  a 
more  constant  interest  in  the  management  of  their  own  affairs, 
such  combinations  becoming  less  necessary,  lose  somewhat  of  the 
public  favour ;  and  we  believe  that  at  no  period  of  our  history 
did,  what  is  called  *  Party,'  enjoy  less  popularity  and  exert  less 
influence  with  the  bulk  of  the  community.  It  may  indeed  be 
affirmed  with  safety,  that  the  efforts  and  the  personal  weight  of 
individuals,  have,  of  late  years,  done  far  more  to  keep  alive  the 
power  and  authority  of  Parties,  than  the  influence  of  party  has 
done  for  the  protection  of  their  particular  members.  A  new  cast 
ing  also  of  political  sects  has  taken  place ;  the  distinctions,  and 
almost  the  names,  of  Loyalist  and  Jacobin,  Whig  and  Tory,  Court 
and  Country  Faction,  are  fast  wearing  away.  Two  great  divisions 


62  STATE     OF     PARTIES. 

of  the  community  will,  in  all  likelihood,  soon  be  far  more  gene 
rally  known ;  the  Liberal  and  the  Illiberal,  who  will  divide,  but 
we  may  be  sure  most  unequally,  the  suffrages  of  the  Nation. 

Nor  is  it  in  name  only  that  this  arrangement  will  be  new  ;  the 
people  will  be  differently  distributed  ;  the  coalition,  which  has  been 
gradually  forming  among  the  public  men  whose  personal  respect 
and  mutual  confidence  has  brought  about  so  fortunate  a  union, 
extends  to  the  community  at  large.  Some  of  the  older  questions, 
by  which  Whig  and  Tory  were  wont  to  be  divided,  retain  all  their 
importance ;  but,  upon  these,  the  Liberal  party,  of  whatever  deno 
mination,  are  well  agreed.  Indeed,  it  used  to  be  a  saying  of  Mr. 
Wilberforce,  when  he  regarded  the  importance  of  those  questions, 
compared  with  the  ones  they  still  differed  about,  that  he  would 
not  answer  to  the  name  of  Tory  ;  conveying  thereby,  as  that  great 
man  is  wont,  a  lesson  of  his  mild  wisdom  with  the  relish  of 
attractive  and  harmless  wit.  The  only  consequence  with  respect 
to  doctrines  which  such  a  junction  can  produce,  is  likely  to  be 
beneficial  both  to  the  State  and  to  the  progress  of  sound  opinion. 
Extremes  will  be  avoided ;  alterations  in  our  system  will  be 
gradual ;  and  the  only  risk  which  the  existence,  or  the  measures 
of  a  Liberal  Government  could  run,  will  be  avoided — that  of  a 
reaction  against  them, — when  it  is  distinctly  perceived  by  all  men, 
that  we  are  governed  by  individuals,  whose  great  parts  are  under 
the  control  of  sound  discretion,  and  whose  conduct  is,  in  all  things, 
tempered  with  the  moderation  of  practical  wisdom. 


JEWS'     DISABILITIES     BILL.  65 

injury  committed  in  return  ;  they  are  made  up,  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end,  of  atrocious  cruelties  inflicted  on  the  one  hand,  and 
grievous   privations   endured   for    conscience-sake    on  the   other. 
With  respect  to  all  Christian  sects,  their  changes  of  situation  have 
always  afforded  scope  for  charges  of  mutual  recrimination  against 
one  another ;  but  every  one  allows  the  side  on  which  the  balance 
between  the  Jew  and  the  Christian  is  weighed  down.     As  to  the 
opposition  offered  to  this  Bill  by  my  hon.  friend,  I  am  at  a  loss  to 
see  on  what  he  has  grounded  it,  unless  he  takes  the  broad  prin 
ciple,  that  no  one  who  is  not  a  Christian  is  to  be  entrusted  with 
power,  as  his  rule  of  action  ;  I  am  at  a  loss  to  see  how  he  can  refuse 
his  assent  to  or  oppose  this  measure  without  throwing  himself  open 
to  the  charge  of  inconsistency.     If  this  Bill,  like  the  Roman  Ca 
tholic  one  of  last  Session,  is  to  be  opposed,  it  is  condemning  the 
strong  and  the  weak,  the  violent  and  the  patient,  the  proselyting 
and  the  exclusive,  the  political  and  the  religious.     If  this  is  the 
course  that  is  to  be  taken  for  our  guide,  persecution  will  never 
want  an  excuse,  and  the  wolf  will  ever  be  able  to  invent  a  pretence 
to  bear  down  and  destroy  the  lamb.     If  this  is  to  be  the  maxim 
set  up  for  our  land-mark,  it  will  soon  appear  that  every  thing  may 
be  a  reason  with  the  aggressor,  as  every  thing  is  shown  to  be  a 
crime  in  the  aggressed.     In  all  the  opposition  that  was  lately 
evinced  against  the  Catholics,  it  was  never  once  assumed  or  pre 
tended  that  the  opposition  was  religious ;  it  was  political,  and 
nothing  else.     When  the  object  was  to  excite  ill  blood  and  rancour 
in  the  country — when  red-hot  speeches  and  tub-sermons  went  forth 
on  the  subject,  the  people  were  told  that  the  question  was,  whether 
they  should  be  compelled  to  worship  stocks  and  stones,  instead  of 
the  true  God  ?     But  this  was  a  point  of  view  never  alluded  to  by 
the  more  distinguished   and  candid  opponents  of  the    Catholic 
claims.     I   myself  remember  having  heard   the   Earl  of  Eldon 
declare  that  it  was  not  on  religious  but  on  political  grounds,  that 
he  was  opposed  to  the  measure.     The  question  just  at  that  time 


60  JEWS'     DISABILITIES     BILL, 

under  consideration  was  that  of  Transubstantiation ;  and  the  noble 
and  learned  Lord  observed  that  it  was  not  because  the  Catholics 
believed  in  the  real  presence  that  they  were  objected  to,  but  that 
being  the  test  by  which  they  were  kept  out,  they  were  through 
that  kept  out,  because  they  were  not  good  subjects.  But  now  the 
whole  case  is  changed.  Political  objection  is  fairly  given  up  ;  and 
in  its  place  religious  persecution  is  avowed.  In  all  that  my  hon. 
friend,  the  member  for  Oxford,  has  offered  to  the  House,  I  have 
traced  but  two  political  objections ;  and  neither  of  them  appears  to 
me  to  be  entitled  to  the  weight  which  my  hon.  friend  would  giv« 
to  them.  The  first  political  argument  that  my  hon.  friend  has 
adduced  against  this  measure  is,  that  the  Jews  of  this  country  are 
more  attached  to  their  nation — wandering  and  scattered  as  they 
are  over  the  face  of  the  earth — than  they  are  to  the  people  of 
England.  The  only  answer  that  I  shall  offer  to  this,  is,  that  at  all 
events  it  is  exceedingly  unfair  to  lay  down  this  as  an  objection  till 
we  have  tried  the  experiment  whether,  by  making  Englishmen  of 
them,  they  will  not  become  members  of  the  community.  Till  that 
has  been  done,  all  we  can  say  is,  that  as  long  as  they  are  not  English 
men  they  are  nothing  but  Jews.  The  other  objection  of  my  hon. 
friend  appears  to  me  to  be  more  extraordinary  still.  He  says  that 
if  this  measure  be  granted,  the  power  of  the  Jews  will  be  such  that 
they  will  come  into  Parliament  in  a  much  greater  number  than  is 
proportioned  to  their  relative  number  in  the  country,  and  the  con 
sequence  of  this  will  be  to  destroy  the  present  system  of  represen 
tation,  which  will  be  rendered  odious  to  the  people,  and  a  reform 
in  Parliament  must  ensue.  All  that  I  can  see  in  this  argument  is, 
that  the  Jews  will  not  get  into  Parliament,  because  we  are  labour 
ing  under  a  bad  system  of  representation.  At  all  events,  the  sys 
tem  that  we  have  at  present  must  be  either  good  or  bad.  If  the 
system  is  bad,  it  is  evident  that  the  sooner  we  get  rid  of  it  the 
better.  If  the  system  is  good,  why  should  we  complain  of  that  to 
which  it  naturally  tends  ?  These  objections  seem  to  be  the  only 


JEWS'     DISABILITIES     BILL.  67 

political  objections  that  my  hon.  friend  has  urged  against  the  mea 
sure  now  before  the  House,  and  all  the  rest  may  be  characterised 
as  purely  religious  persecution.  But  even  when  my  hon.  friend 
has  brought  himself  to  that,  he  does  not  pretend  to  say  that  he 
opposes  the  Bill  because  the  religion  of  the  Jews  is  dangerous. 
'No  such  pretence  is  put  forth  at  all.  No  such  outcry  as  that  raised 
last  session  is  heard  now.  The  opposition  which  has  made  its 
appearance  now  is,  if  I  may  use  the  phrase  without  giving  offence 
to  my  hon.  friend,  nothing  but  the  offal — nothing  but  the  leavings 
of  the  intolerance  which  was  so  abundant  last  year.  All  that  tho 
House  has  been  told  is,  that  the  Jews  are  not  Christians,  and  that 
therefore  they  must  not  have  power.  But  this  has  not  been 
declared  openly  and  ingenuously,  as  it  once  was.  Formerly  the 
persecution  of  the  Jews  was  at  least  consistent.  The  thing  was 
made  complete  once  by  taking  away  their  property,  their  liberty, 
and  their  lives.  My  hon.  friend  is  now  equally  vehement  as  to 
taking  away  their  political  power ;  and  yet,  no  doubt,  he  would 
shudder  at  what  such  a  measure  would  really  take  away.  The 
only  power  that  my  hon.  friend  seems  to  wish  to  deprive  the  Jews 
of  is  to  consist  in  maces,  gold  chains,  and  skins  of  parchment,  with 
pieces  of  wax  dangling  at  the  ends  of  them.  But  he  is  leaving 
them  all  the  things  that  bestow  real  power.  He  allows  them  to 
have  property,  and  in  these  times  property  is  power,  mighty  and 
overwhelming  power — he  allows  them  to  have  knowledge,  and 
knowledge  is  no  less  power.  Then  why  is  all  this  power  poisoned 
by  intolerance  ?  Why  is  the  Jew  to  have  the  power  of  a  principal 
over  his  clerk — of  a  master  over  his  servant — of  a  landlord  over 
his  tenant  ?  Why  is  he  to  have  all  this,  which  is  power,  and  yet 
to  be  deprived  of  the  fair  and  natural  consequences  of  this  power  ? 
Why,  having  conceded  all  this,  is  my  hon.  friend  afterwards  to 
turn  round  and  say,  "  You  shall  have  all  these  real  effects  and 
advantages  of  your  situation,  but  in  the  fair  sequence  of  their  pos 
session,  you  shall  be  crippled  and  borne  down."  As  things  now 


68 

stand,  a  Jew  may  be  the  richest  man  in  England — he  may  possess 
the  whole  of  London — his  interest  may  be  the  means  of  raising 
this  party  or  depressing  that — of  making  East-India  directors,  or 
sending  members  into  Parliament — the  influence  of  the  Jew  may 
be  of  the  first  consequence  in  a  war  which  shall  be  the  means  of 
shaking  all  Europe  to  its  centre.  His  power  may  come  into  play 
in  assisting  or  retarding  the  greatest  plans  of  the  greatest  Princes  ; 
and  yet,  with  all  this  confessed,  acknowledged,  undenied,  my  hon. 
friend  would  have  them  deprived  of  power  !  If,  indeed,  my  hon. 
friend  would  have  things  thus  arranged,  I  would  put  a  question  to 
him  thus  : — Does  he  not  think  that  wealth  confers  power  ?  If  it  do, 
can  he  be  prepared  to  say  that  the  Jews  shall  not  have  power  ?  If  it 
do  not,  where  are  we  to  draw  the  line  ?  How  are  we  to  permit  all 
the  consequences  of  their  wealth  but  one  ?  I  cannot  conceive  the 
nature  of  an  argument  that  is  to  bear  out  such  a  position.  If  it 
was  to  be  full  and  entire  persecution,  after  the  consistent  example 
of  our  ancestors,  I  could  understand  it.  If  we  were  called  on  to 
revert  to  the  days,  when,  as  a  people,  they  were  pillaged — when 
their  warehouses  were  torn  down — when  their  every  right  was 
sacrificed,  the  thing  would  be  comprehensible.  But  this  is  a  deli 
cate  persecution,  with  no  abstract  rule  for  its  guidance.  As  to  the 
matter  of  right,  if  the  word  "  legal1'  is  to  be  attached  to  it,  I  am 
bound  to  acknowledge  that  the  Jews  have  no  legal  right  to  power ; 
but  in  the  same  way,  300  years  ago,  they  had  no  legal  right  to 
be  in  England  ;  and  600  years  ago  they  had  no  right  to  the  teeth 
in  their  heads  :  but  if  it  is  the  moral  right  we  are  to  look  at,  I  say, 
that  on  every  principle  of  moral  obligation,  I  hold  that  the  Jew  has 
a  right  to  political  power.  Every  man  has  a  right  to  all  that  may 
conduce  to  his  pleasure,  if  it  does  not  inflict  pain  on  any  one  else. 
This  is  one  of  the  broadest  maxims  of  human  nature,  and  I  cannot 
therefore  see  how  its  supporters  can  be  fairly  called  upon  to  defend 
it — the  onus  probandi  lies,  not  on  the  advocates  of  freedom,  but  on 
the  advocates  of  restraint.  Let  my  hon.  friend  first  show  that 


JEWS'     DISABILITIES     BILL.  69 

there  is  some  danger — some  injury  to  the  State,  likely  to  arise 
from  the  admission  of  the  Jews,  and  then  will  be  the  time  to  caH 
upon  us  to  answer  the  case  that  he  has  made  out.  Till  such  an 
argument,  however,  is.  fully  made  out,  I  shall  contend  for  the  moral 
right  of  the  Jews.  That  they  wish  to  have  access  to  the  privilege 
of  sitting  in  Parliament  has  already  been  shown  ;  it  now  remains 
to  show  that  some  harm  is  calculated  to  result  from  that  admis 
sion.  Unless  this  is  shown,  the  refusal  is  neither  more  nor  less  than 
persecution.  My  hon.  friend  put  a  different  interpretation  upon 
the  particular  word  I  have  used  ;  but  the  meaning  will  still  remain 
the  same;  and  when  we  come  to  define  the  sense,  it  must  be 
found,  that  we  are  only  quibbling  about  a  word.  Any  person  may 
build  a  theory  upon  phrase's :  with  some,  perhaps,  burning  would 
be  persecution,  while  the  screwing  of  thumbs  would  not  be  perse 
cution  ;  others  may  call  the  screwing  of  thumbs  persecution,  and 
deny  the  justice  of  that  expression  when  used  to  whipping.  But 
according  to  my  impression,  the  infliction  of  any  penalties  on  account 
of  religious  opinions,  and  on  account  of  religious  opinions  alone,  is 
generally  understood  as  coming  within  the  meaning  of  the  term,  for 
all  the  purposes  of  political  argument.  It  is  as  much  persecution  in 
principle  as  an  auto  da  fe,  the  only  difference  is  in  degree.  Defin 
ing  persecution,  then,  as  I  do,  I  cannot  conceive  any  argument  to  be 
adduced  in  favour  of  the  mildest  degree  of  this  injustice,  which, 
logically  speaking,  though  not  morally,  indeed,  might  not  be  used 
with  equal  force  in  favour  of  the  most  cruel  inflictions  from  similar 
motives.  I  have  to  make  my  apology  for  having  occupied  so  much 
of  the  time  of  the  hon.  gentlemen  present ;  but  I  could  not  refrain 
from  making  known  my  sentiments  to  this  House  of  Commons, 
which  has  done  more  for  the  rights  of  conscience  than  any  Parlia 
ment  that  ever  sat.  Its  sessions  of  1828  and  1829  have  been 
marked  by  a  glorious  course  in  favour  of  religious  liberty ;  and  I 
hope  that,  before  our  separation,  this  Session  of  1830  will  put  the 


70  JEWS1     DISABILITIES     BILL. 

finishing  hand  to  that  work  which  so  many  great  and  good  men 
wish  to  see  accomplished,  but  which  cannot  be,  till  this  most  desi 
rable  measure  shall  be  carried  into  effect. 

NOTE.  In  his  speech  on  this  subject, which  followed,  Sir  James  Macintosh 
said,  "  The  speech  which  they  had  herrd  from  his  Honourable  and  Learned 
Friend  was  one  which,  he  had  no  doubt,  would  make  its  full  impression  on 
the  House,  it  being  every  way  worthy  of  the  name  he  bore." 


SLAVERY  IN  THE  WEST  INDIES.* 
DEC.  13,  1830. 

On  the  Presentation  of  a  Petition  from  West  India  Planters,  and 
others  interested  in  Property  in  the  West  Indies. 

IF  the  petitioners  who  ask  for  compensation,  and  if  the  noble 
Marquis  who  presented  the  petition,  and  the  hon.  Member  who 
spoke  last  J3ut  one,  had  confined  themselves  to  the  subject  of  com 
pensation,  he  should  not  have  thought  it  necessary  to  say  one  word 
on  the  subject.  He  thought — he  believed  the  public  also  thought 
— that  compensation  ought  to  be  given.  He  agreed  with  the  noble 
Lord  and  the  hon.  Gentleman,  and  he  agreed,  too,  with  the  peti 
tioners,  that  whenever  slavery  was  extinguished,  all  the  loss  of  pro 
perty  which  might  arise  should  be  made  good  by  the  Government. 
He  agreed  in  this  opinion,  not  because  he  agreed  with  what  fell 
from  the  hon.  Member  for  Dumfries,  which,  by  the  by,  he  did  not 
understand,  about  the  compact  of  society.  He  did  not  see  from 
that  species  of  metaphysical  argument  how  protection  for  property 
was  necessary ;  but  it  was  found  by  experience  that  it  was  bad  for 
men  that  property  should  not  be  secured,  and  that  great  inconve 
nience  resulted  from  violating  property,  und  on  that  ground,  it  was 
said,  that  men  ought  to  have  their  property  protected.  After  the 
public  had  declared,  by  Acts  of  Parliament,  that  men  should  be 
property,  after  they  had  been  bought  and  sold,  deposited  as  pledges, 
and  made  to  answer  for  dowers,  great  inconvenience  would  result 
from  taking  away  that  species  of  property,  and  the  masters  and 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  i.  p.  1054-6. 


72  SLAVERY      IN     THE     WEST     INDIES. 

owners  ought  to  be  compensated.  He  declared,  that  he  thought, 
in  common  with  most  of  those  who  petitioned  the  House,  that 
slavery  ought  to  be  extinguished  ;  but  he  and  the  petitioners  all 
contemplated,  on  its  extinction,  giving  a  reasonable  compensation 
to  the  masters  of  slaves.  If,  therefore,  the  noble  Lord  and  the 
lion.  Gentleman  had  confined  themselves  to  compensation,  which 
he  admitted  was  just,  he  should  not  have  said  one  word  on  the 
subject ;  but  they  had  mingled  other  matters  with  that  which  he 
always  wished  to  see  separated  from  it.  He  agreed  that  exagge 
ration  could  not  do  any  good,  and  he  regretted,  as  much  as  the 
noble  Lord  and  the  lion.  Member  for  Dumfries,  that  either  anger  or 
exaggeration  should  have  been  displayed  on  either  side.  It  was  a 
charge  against  the  petitions  for  the  abolition,  that  they  were  all 
got  up  under  the  influence  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Society.  The  peti 
tions  were  got  up  under  that  influence — was  that  extraordinary  ? 
Who  should  inform  the  people  of  England,  busily  employed  in 
their  own  domestic  occupations,  of  what  occurred  in  the  West 
Indies,  if  some  such  Society  did  not  undertake  the  task  ?  But  the 
influence  the  Society  possessed  was  over  the  public  mind.  It  had  no 
other.  It  appealed  to  the  public  reason.  It  had  no  monopoly  of 
the  public  Press.  Its  reports  and  proceedings  were  open  to  cavil 
and  objection.  The  periodical  literature  was  as  much  in  the  hands 
of  the  West  Indians  as  their  opponents.  Magazines  and  Reviews 
were  on  their  side  ;  of  celebrated  works,  he  believed  that  The  Quar 
terly  Review  had  always  been  in  their  favour.  He  did  not  believe 
that  there  was  one  of  those  periodical  publications  which  were  most 
read — he  meant  the  newspapers — he  did  not  believe  that  there  was 
one  of  the  London  newspapers  that  was  fully  and  completely  on  the 
side  of  the  abolitionists.  The  organs  of  the  West-India  body  were 
as  numerous  as  those  of  the  other  side,  and  their  funds  were  at 
least  equal  to  those  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Society.  It  was  not  long 
ago  that  the  West-India  body  gave  as  much  to  one  writer  as  the 
Anti-Slavery  Society  received  and  employed  in  a  year.  The  fact 


SLAVERY     IX     THE     WEST     INDIES.  73 

was,  that  the  West-India  body  was  in  the  wrong.  All  men  were 
active  to  embrace  the  opposite  opinions.  They  had  been  progres 
sively  gaining  ground,  and  all  the  efforts  of  the  West-Indians  had 
failed  to  stem  the  tide  of  public  opinion.  They  had  been  trying 
since  1802,  and  were  carried  further  and  further  away  every  year 
from  their  object.'  The  public  feeling  since  that  time  had  ebbed 
and  flowed  somewhat,  but,  on  the  whole,  it  had  been  much 
strengthened.  After  every  ebb  it  had  only  run  upwards  with 
double  vigour.  It  required  that  slavery  should  be  abolished  ;  it 
required,  in  the  interest  of  the  West-Indians  themselves,  as  well  as 
in  the  interest  of  the  slaves,  and  in  the  interest  of  the  country 
generally,  that  the  question  should  be  brought  to  a  speedy  conclu 
sion,  and  that  the  slaves  should  be  emancipated.  The  petitions,  it 
was  said,  were  violent-;  but,  though  nobody  supposed  violence  was 
good,  what  good  cause  had  escaped  being  disfigured  by  violence  ? 
The  Christian  religion  itself  at  its  origin  was  disfigured  by  many 
pious  frauds,  and  fanatics  then  abounded.  Such  was  the  case,  too, 
at  the  Reformation,  and  much  violence  was  instrumental  in  bring 
ing  it  to  a  conclusion.  For  his  part,  he  did  not  charge  the  West- 
India  body  with  the  calumny  that  was  uttered  against  the 
abolitionists.  The  body,  he  knew,  contained  many  honourable 
men,  who  were  free  from  all  suspicion  of  such  a  charge,  and  who 
scouted  as  much  as  any  honourable  men  could,  those  people 
who  lived  by  slander  and  traded  in  violent  abuse,  and  in  whom  the 
ideas  of  calumny  and  their  dinner  were  inseparably  associated. 
He  would  do  justice  to  the  West-Indians,  and  let  them  do  justice 
to  their  opponents.  Let  neither  party  recriminate  any  longer. 
Let  them  all  consider  the  matter  like  statesmen  and  legislators. 
Let  them  ask  themselves,  was  there  any  evil,  and  was  there  a 
remedy  for  it  ?  Were  they  the  people  who  ought  to  apply  the 
remedy,  and  was  this  the  time  ?  If  this  were  the  time,  and  they 
were  the  people,  he  would  implore  them  to  apply  the  remedy. 

He  saw  that  there  were  many  difficulties  in  the  way  of  it;  but  he 
VOL.  i.  4 


74  SLAVERY     IN     THE     WEST     INDIES. 

thought  those  difficulties  would  readily  vanish  if  the  subject  were 
taken  up  by  statesmen  of  a  capacious  intellect  and  resolute  heart. 
The  statesmen  who  had  lately  taken  office  were  of  that  character : 
in  them  he  had  great  confidence,  and  he  had  no  doubt  that  they 
would  bring  forward  the  question  in  a  proper  manner.  When  it 
was  brought  forward,  he,  for  one,  wished  that  it  should  be  with  a 
view  to  extinguish  the  system  of  slavery  ;  but  he  wished  it  brought 
forward  carefully,  with  temperance,  avoiding  all  causes  of  irritation, 
and  all  violence  of  language ;  he  wished  the  question  looked  at  as 
a  whole,  and  that  it  should  be  discussed  with  a  sincere  desire  to 
come  to  a  calm  and  deliberate  decision,  and  to  do  every  interest 
justice. 


ON    PARLIAMENTARY    REFORM.* 
MARCH   2,   1831. 

In  the  adjourned  Debate  on  the  motion,  "that  leave  be  given  to 
bring  in  a  Bill  to  amend  the  Representation  of  the  people  of 
England  and  Wales" 

IT  is  a  circumstance,  Sir,  of  happy  augury  for  the  measure  before 
the  House,  that  almost  all  those  who  have  opposed  it  have  declared 
themselves  altogether  hostile  to  the  principle  of  Reform.  Two 
Members,  I  think,  have  professed,  that  though  they  disapprove  of 
the  plan  now  submitted  to  us,  they  yet  conceive  some  alteration 
of  the  Representative  system  to  be  advisable.  Yet  even  those 
Gentlemen  have  used,  as  far  as  I  have  observed,  no  arguments 
which  would  not  apply  as  strongly  to  the  most  moderate  change, 
as  to  that  which  has  been  proposed  by  his  Majesty's  Government. 
I  say,  Sir,  that  I  consider  this  as  a  circumstance  of  happy  augury. 
For  what  I  feared  was,  not  the  opposition  of  those  who  shrink 
from  all  Reform, — but  the  disunion  of  reformers.  I  knew,  that 
during  three  months  every  reformer  had  been  employed  in  con 
jecturing  what  the  plan  of  the  Government  would  be.  I  knew,  that 
every  reformer  had  imagined  in  his  own  mind  a  scheme  differing 
doubtless  in  some  points  from  that  which  my  noble  friend,  the 
Paymaster  of  the  Forces,  has  developed.  I  felt  therefore  great 
apprehension  that  one  person  would  be  dissatisfied  with  one 
part  'of  the  Bill,  that  another  person  would  be  dissatisfied  with 
another  part,  and  that  thus  our  whole  strength  would  be  wasted 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  Vol.  ii.  1830-31,  p.  1190-1205. 


76  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

in  internal  dissensions.  That  apprehension  is  now  at  an  end.  I 
have  seen  with  delight  the  perfect  concord  which  prevails  among 
all  who  deserve  the  name  of  reformers  in  this  House,  and  I  trust 
that  I  may  consider  it  as  an  omen  of  the  concord  which  will 
*  prevail  among  reformers  throughout  the  country.  I  will  not,  Sir, 
at  present  express  any  opinion  as  to  the  details  of  the  Bill ;  but 
having  daring  the  last  twenty-four  hours,  given  the  most  diligent 
consideration  to  its  general  principles,  I  have  no  hesitation  in 
pronouncing  it  a  wise,  noble,  and  comprehensive  measure,  skilfully 
framed  for  the  healing  of  great  distempers,  for  the  securing  at 
once  of  the  public  liberties  and  of  the  public  repose,  and  for  the 
reconciling  and  knitting  together  of  all  the  orders  of  the  State. 
The  hon.  Baronet  (Sir  John  Walsh)  who  has  just  sat  down  has 
told  us,  that  the  Ministers  have  attempted  to  unite  two  inconsistent 
principles  in  one  abortive  measure.  He  thinks,  if  I  understand 
him  rightly,  that  they  ought  either  to  leave  the  representative 
system  such  as  it  is,  or  to  make  it  symmetrical.  I  think,  Sir,  that 
they  would  have  acted  unwisely  if  they  had  taken  either  of  these 
courses.  Their  principle  is  plain,  rational,  and  consistent.  It  is 
this, — to  admit  the  middle  class  to  a  large  and  direct  share  in  the 
Representation,  without  any  violent  shock  to  the  institutions  of  our 
country  [hear  /]  I  understand  those  cheers — but  surely  the 
Gentlemen  who  utter  them  will  allow,  that  the  change  made  in 
our  institutions  by  this  measure  is  far  less  violent  than  that  which, 
according  to  the  hon.  Baronet,  ought  to  be  made  if  we  make  any 
Reform  at  all.  I  praise  the  Ministers  for  not  attempting,  under 
existing  circumstances,  to  make  the  Representation  uniform — I 
praise  them  for  not  effacing  the  old  distinction  between  the  towns 
and  the  counties, — for  not  assigning  Members  to  districts,  according 
to  the  American  practice,  by  the  Rule  of  Three.  They  have  done 
all  that  was  necessary  for  the  removing  of  a  great  practical  evil, 
and  no  more  than  was  necessary.^*  T  consider  this,  Sir,  as  a 
practical  question.  I  rest  my  opinion  on  no  general  theory  of 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  77 

government — I  distrust  all  general  theories  of  government.  I  will 
not  positively  say,  that  there  is  any  form  of  polity  which  may  not, 
under  some  conceivable  circumstances,  be  the  best  possible.  I 
believe  that  there  are  societies  in  which  every  man  may  safely  be 
admitted  to  vote  [hear!]  Gentlemen  may  cheer,  but  such  is  my 
opinion.  I  say,  Sir,  that  there  are  countries  in  which  the  condition 
of  the  labouring  classes  is  such  that  they  may  safely  be  intrusted 
with  the  right  of  electing  Members  of  the  Legislature.  If  the 
laborers  of  England  were  in  that  state  in  which  I,  from  my  soul, 
wish  to  see  them, — if  employment  were  always  plentiful,  wages 
always  high,  food  always  cheap, — if  a  large  family  were  considered 
not  as  an  encumbrance,  but  as  a  blessing — the  principal  objections 
to  Universal  Suffrage  would,  I  think,  be  removed.  Universal 
Suffrage  exists  in  the  United  States  without  producing  any  very 
frightful  consequences ;  and  I  do  not  believe,  that  the  people  of 
those  States,  or  of  any  part  of  the  world,  are  in  any  good  quality 
naturally  superior  to  our  own  countrymen.  But,  unhappily,  the 
lower  orders  in  England,  and  in  all  old  countries,  are  occasionally 
in  a  state  of  great  distress.  Some  of  the  causes  of  this  distress  are, 
I  fear,  beyond  the  control  of  the  Government.  We  know  what 
effect  distress  produces,  even  on  people  more  intelligent  than  the 
great  body  of  the  laboring  classes  can  possibly  be.  We  know 
that  it  makes  even  wise  men  irritable,  unreasonable,  and  credu 
lous — eager  for  immediate  relief — heedless  of  remote  consequences. 
There  is  no  quackery  in  medicine,  religion,  or  politics,  which  may 
not  impose  even  on  a  powerful  mind,  when  that  mind  has  been 
disordered  by  pain  or  fear.  It  is  therefore  no  reflection  on  the 
lower  orders  of  Englishmen,  who  are  not,  and  who  cannot  in  the 
nature  of  things  be  highly  educated,  to  say  that  distress  produces 
on  them  its  natural  effects,  those  effects  which  it  would  produce 
on  the  Americans,  or  on  any  other  people, — that  it  blunts  their 
judgment,  that  it  inflames  their  passions,  that  it  makes  them 
prone  to  believe  those  who  flatter  them,  and  to  distrust  those  who 


78  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

would  serve  them.  For  the  sake,  therefore,  of  the  whole  society, 
for  the  sake  of  the  labouring  classes  themselves,  I  hold  it  to  be 
clearly  expedient,  that  in  a  country  like  this,  the  right  of  suffrage 
should  depend  on  a  pecuniary  qualification.  Every  argument, 
Sir,  which  would  induce  me  to  oppose  Universal  Suffrage,  induces 
me  to  support  the  measure  which  is  now  before  us.  I  oppose 
Universal  Suffrage,  because  I  think  that  it  would  produce  a 
destructive  revolution.  I  support  this  measure,  because  I  am  sure 
that  it  is  our  best  security  against  a  revolution.  The  noble  Pay 
master  of  the  Forces  hinted,  delicately  indeed  and  remotely,  at 
this  subject.  He  spoke  of  the  danger  of  disappointing  the 
expectations  of  the  nation ;  and  for  this  he  was  charged  with 
threatening  the  House.  Sir,  in  the  year  1817,  the  late  Lord 
Londonderry  proposed  a  suspension  of  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act. 
On  that  occasion  he  told  the  House,  that,  unless  the  measures 
which  he  recommended  were  adopted,  the  public  peace  could  not 
be  preserved.  Was  he  accused  of  threatening  the  House  ? 
Again,  in  the  year  1819,  he  brought  in  the  bills  known  by  the 
name  of  the  Six  Acts.  He  then  told  the  House,  that,  unless  the 
executive  power  were  reinforced,  all  the  institutions  of  the  country 
would  be  overturned  by  popular  violence.  Was  he  then  accused 
of  threatening  the  House  ?  Will  any  Gentleman  say,  that  it  is 
parliamentary  and  decorous  to  urge  the  danger  arising  from 
popular  discontent  as  an  argument  for  severity ;  but  that  it  is 
unparliamentary  and  indecorous  to  urge  that  same  danger  as  an 
argument  for  conciliatory  measures  ?  I,  Sir,  do  entertain  great 
apprehension  for  the  fate  of  my  country.  I  do  in  my  conscience 
believe,  that  unless  this  measure,  or  some  similar  measure,  be 
speedily  adopted,  great  and  terrible  calamities  will  befal  us. 
Entertaining  this  opinion,  I  think  myself  bound  to  state  it,  not  as 
a  threat,  but  as  a  reason.  I  support  this  measure  as  a  measure 
of  Reform  :  but  I  support  it  still  more  as  a  measure  of  conserva 
tion.  That  we  may  exclude  those  whom  it  is  necessary  to  exclude, 


PARLIAMKNTAKY     REFORM.  79 

we  must  admit  those  whom  it  may  be  safe  to  admit.  At  present 
we  oppose  the  schemes  of  revolutionists  with  only  one  half,  with 
only  one  quarter  of  our  proper  force.  We  say,  and  we  say- 
justly,  that  it  is  not  by  mere  numbers,  but  by  property  and 
intelligence,  that  the  nation  ought  to  be  governed.  Yet,  saying 
this,  we  exclude  from  all  share  in  the  government  vast  masses  of 
property  and  intelligence, — vast  numbers  of  those  who  are  most 
interested  in  preserving  tranquillity,  and  who  know  best  how  to 
preserve  it.  We  do  more.  We  drive  over  to  the  side  of  revohH 
tion  those  whom  we  shut  out  from  power.  Is  this  a  time  when 
the  cause  of  law  and  order  can  spare  one  of  its  natural  allies  ?  My 
noble  friend,  the  Paymaster  of  the  Forces,  happily  described  the 
effect  which  some  parts  of  our  representative  system  would  produce 
on  the  mind  of  a  foreigner,  who  had  heard  much  of  our  freedom 
and  greatness.  If,  Sir,  I  wished  to  make  such  a  foreigner  clearly 
understand  what  I  consider  as  the  great  defects  of  our  system,  I 
would  conduct  him  through  that  great  city  which  lies  to  the  north 
of  Great  Russell-street  and  Oxford-street, — a  city  superior  in  size 
and  in  population  to  the  capitals  of  many  mighty  kingdoms ;  and 
probably  superior  in  opulence,  intelligence,  and  general  respecta 
bility,  to  any  city  in  the  world.  I  would  conduct  him  through 
that  interminable  succession  of  streets  and  squares,  all  consisting 
of  well-built  and  well-furnished  houses.  I  would  make  him 
observe  the  brilliancy  of  the  shops,  and  the  crowd  of  well-appointed 
equipages.  I  would  lead  him  round  that  magnificent  circle  of 
palaces  which  surrounds  the  Regent's-park.  I  would  tell  him,  that 
the  rental  of  this  district  was  far  greater  than  that  of  the  whole 
kingdom  of  Scotland,  at  the  time  of  the  Union.  And  then  I 
would  tell  him,  that  this  was  an  unrepresented  district !  It  is 
needless  to  give  any  more  instances.  It  is  needless  to  speak 
of  Manchester,  Birmingham,  Leeds,  Sheffield,  with  no  repre 
sentation  ;  or  of  Edinburgh  and  Glasgow  with  a  mock  repre 
sentation.  If  a  property-tax  were  now  imposed  on  the  old 


80  PARLIAMENTAUY     REFORM. 

principle,  that  no  person  who  had  less  than  ISO/,  a  year 
should  contribute,  I  should  not  be  surprised  to  find,  that  one-half 
in  number  and  value  of  the  contributors  had  no  votes  at  all ;  and  it 
would,  beyond  all  doubt,  be  found,  that  one-fiftieth  part  in  number 
and  value  of  the  contributors  had  a  larger  share  of  the  representa 
tion  than  the  other  forty-nine  fiftieths.  This  is  not  government  by 
property.  It  is  government  by  certain  detached  portions  and 
fragments  of  property,  selected  from  the  rest,  and  preferred  to  the 
rest,  on  no  rational  principle  whatever.  To  say  that  such  a  system 
is  ancient  is  no  defence.  My  hon.  friend,  the  member  for  the 
University  of  Oxford  (Sir  R.  Inglis),  challenges  us  to  show,  that 
the  Constitution  was  ever  better  than  it  is.  Sir,  we  are  legislators, 
not  antiquaries.  The  question  for  us  is,  not  whether  the  Constitu 
tion  was  better  formerly,  but  whether  we  can  make  it  better  now. 
In  fact,  however,  the  system  was  not  in  ancient  times  by  any 
means  so  absurd  as  it  is  in  our  age.  One  noble  Lord  (Lord 
Stormont)  has  to-night  told  us,  that  the  town  of  Aldborough, 
which  he  represents,  was  not  larger  in  the  time  of  Edward  I.  than 
it  is  at  present.  The  line  of  its  walls,  he  assures  us.  may  still  be 
traced.  It  is  now  built  up  to  that  line.  He  argues,  therefore, 
that,  as  the  founders  of  our  representative  institutions  gave  Mem 
bers  to  Aldborough  when  it  was  as  small  as  it  now  is,  those  who 
would  disfranchise  it  on  account  of  its  smallness  have  no  right  to 
say,  that  they  are  recurring  to  the  original  principle  of  our  repre 
sentative  institutions.  But  does  the  noble  Lord  remember  the 
change  which  has  taken  place  in -the  country  during  the  last  five 
centuries  ?  Does  he  remember  how  much  England  has  grown  in 
population,  while  Aldborough  has  been  standing  still  ?  Does  he 
consider,  that  in  the  time  of  Edward  I.  this  part  of  the  island  did 
not  contain  two  millions  of  inhabitants  ?  It  now  contains  nearly 
fourteen  millions.  A  hamlet  of  the  present  day  would  have  been 
a  place  of  some  importance  in  the  time  of  our  early  Parliaments. 
Aldborough  may  be  absolutely  as  considerable  a  place  as  ever. 


PARLIAMENTARY    REFORM.  81 

But  compared  with  the  kingdom,  it  is  much  less  considerable,  by 
the  noble  Lord's  own  showing,  than  when  it  first  elected  burgesses. 
My  lion,  friend,  the  member  for  the  University  of  Oxford,  has 
collected  numerous  instances  of  the  tyranny  which  the  kings  and 
nobles  anciently  exercised,  both  over  this  House,  and  over  the 
electors.  It  is  not  strange,  that,  in  times  when  nothing  was  held 
sacred,  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  of  the  Representatives  of  the 
people,  should  not  have  been  held  sacred.  The  proceedings  which 
my  lion,  friend  has  mentioned,  no  more  prove,  that,  by  the  ancient 
constitution  of  the  realm,  this  House  ought  to  be  a  tool  of  the 
king  and  of  the  aristocracy,  than  the  Benevolences  and  the  Ship- 
money  prove  their  own  legality ;  or  than  those  unjustifiable 
arrests,  which  took  place  long  after  the  ratification  of  the  great 
Charter,  and  even  after  the  Petition  of  Right,  prove  that  the 
subject  was  not  anciently  entitled  to  his  personal  liberty.  We 
talk  of  the  wisdom  of  our  ancestors — and  in  one  respect  at  least 
they  were  wiser  than  we.  They  legislated  for  their  own  times. 
They  looked  at  the  England  which  was  before  them.  They  did 
not  think  it  necessary  to  give  twice  as  many  Members  to  York  as 
they  gave  to  London,  because  York  had  been  the  capital  of 
Britain  in  the  time  of  Constantius  Chlorus  ;  and  they  would  have 
been  amazed  indeed  if  they  had  foreseen,  that  a  city  of  more  than 
a  hundred  thousand  inhabitants  would  be  left  without  Representa 
tives  in  the  nineteenth  century,  merely  "because  it  stood  on  ground 
which,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  had  been  occupied  by  a  few  huts. 
They  framed  a  representative  system,  which  was  not  indeed 
without  defects  and  irregularities,  but  which  was  well  adapted  to 
the  state  of  England  in  their  time.  But  a  great  revolution  took 
place.  The  character  of  the  old  corporations  changed.  New 
forms  of  property  came  into  existence.  New  portions  of  society 
rose  into  importance.  There  were  in  our  rural  districts  rich 
cultivators,  who  were  not  freeholders.  There  were  in  our  capital 
rich  traders,  who  were  not  liverymen.  Towns  shrank  into  villages. 


82  PARLIAMENTARY    REFORM. 

Villages  swelled  into  cities  larger  than  the  London  of  the  Plan- 
tagenets.  Unhappily,  while  the  natural  growth  of  society  went 
on,  the  artificial  polity  continued  unchanged.  The  ancient  form 
of  the  representation  remained  ;  and  precisely  because  the  form 
remained,  the  spirit  departed.  Then  came  that  pressure  almost  to 
bursting — the  new  wine  in  the  old  bottles — the  new  people  under 
the  old  institutions.  It  is  now  time  for  us  to  pay  a  decent,  a 
rational,  a  manly  reverence  to  our  ancestors — not"  by  superstitiously 
adhering  to  what  they,  under  other  circumstances,  did,  but  by 
doing  what  they,  in  our  circumstances,  would  have  done.  All 
history  is  full  of  revolutions,  produced  by  causes  similar  to  those 
which  are  now  operating  in  England.  A  portion  of  the  community 
which  had  been  of  no  account,  expands  and  becomes  strong.  It 
demands  a  place  in  the  system,  suited,  not  to  its  former  weakness, 
but  to  its  present  power.  If  this  is  granted,  all  is  well.  If  this  is 
refused,  then  comes  the  struggle  between  the  young  energy  of 
one  class,  and  the  ancient  privileges  of  another.  Such  was  the 
struggle  between  the  Plebeians  and  the  Patricians  of  Rome. 
Such  was  the  struggle  of  the  Italian  allies  for  admission  to  the  full 
rights  of  Roman  citizens.  Such  was  the  struggle  of  our  North 
American  colonies  against  the  "mother  country.  Such  was  the 
struggle  which  the  Tiers  Etat  of  France  maintained  against  the 
aristocracy  of  birth.  Such  was  the  struggle  which  the  Catholics 
of  Ireland  maintained  against  the  aristocracy  of  creed.  Such  is 
the  struggle  which  the  free  people  of  colour  in  Jamaica  are  now 
maintaining  against  the  aristocracy  of  skin.  Such,  finally,  is  the 
struggle  which  the  middle  classes  in  England  are  maintaining 
against  an  aristocracy  of  mere  locality — against  an  aristocracy,  the 
principle  of  which  is  to  invest  100  drunken  pot- wallopers  in  one 
place,  or  the  owner  of  a  ruined  hovel  in  another,  with  powers 
which  are  withheld  from  cities  renowned  to  the  furthest  ends  of 
the  earth,  for  the  marvels  of  their  wealth  and  of  their  industry. 
But  these  great  cities,  says  my  hon.  friend,  the  member  for 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  83 

Oxford,  are  virtually,  though  not  directly  represented.  Are  not 
the  wishes  of  Manchester,  he  asks,  as  much  consulted  as  those  of 
any  town  which  sends  Members  to  Parliament  ?  Now,  Sir,  I  do 
not  understand  how  a  power  which  is  salutary  when  exercised 
virtually,  can  be  noxious  when  exercised  directly.  If  the  wishes 
of  Manchester  have  as  much  weight  with  us,  as  they  would  have 
under  a  system  which  should  give  Representatives  to  Manchester, 
how  can  there  be  any  danger  in  giving  Representatives  to  Man 
chester  ?  A  virtual  Representative  is,  I  presume,  a  man  who  acts 
as  a  direct  Representative  would  act :  for  surely  it  would  be  absurd 
to  say,  that  a  man  virtually  represents  the  people  of  property  in 
Manchester,  who  is  in  the  habit  of  saying  No,  when  a  man 
directly  representing  the  people  of  property  in  Manchester  would 
say  Aye.  The  utmost  that  can  be  expected  from  virtual  Repre 
sentation  is,  that  it  may  be  as  good  as  direct  Representation.  If 
so,  why  not  grant  direct  Representation  to  places  which,  as  every 
body  allows,  ought,  by  some  process  or  other,  to  be  represented  ? 
If  it  be  said,  that  there  is  an  evil  in  change  as  change,  I  answer, 
that  there  is  also  an  evil  in  discontent  as  discontent.  This,  indeed, 
is  the  strongest  part  of  our  case.  It  is  said  that  the  system  works 
well.  I  deny  it.  I  deny  that  a  system  works  well,  which  the 
people  regard  with  aversion.  We  may  say  here,  that  it  is  a  good 
system  and  a  perfect  system.  But  if  any  man  were  to  say  so  to 
any  658  respectable  farmers  or  shop-keepers,  chosen  by  lot  in  any 
part  of  England,  he  would  be  hooted  down,  and  laughed  to  scorn. 
Are  these  the  feelings  with  which  any  part  of  the  Government 
ought  to  be  regarded?  Above  all,  are  these  the  feelings  with 
which  the  popular  branch  of  the  Legislature  ought  to  be  regarded  ? 
It  is  almost  as  essential  to  the  utility  of  a  House  of  Commons, 
that  it  should  possess  the  confidence  of  the  people,  as  that  it 
should  deserve  that  confidence.  Unfortunately,  that  which  is  in 
theory  the  popular  part  of  our  Government,  is  in  practice  the 
unpopular  part.  Who  wishes  to  dethrone  the  King?  Who 


8-4  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

wishes  to  turn  the  Lords  out  of  their  House  ?     Here  and  there  a 
crazy  radical,  whom  the  boys  in  the  street  point  at  as  he  walks 
along.     Who  wishes  to  alter  the  constitution  of  this  House  ?     The 
whole  people.     It  is  natural  that  it  should  be  so.     The  House  of 
Commons  is,  in  the   language   of  Mr.  Burke,  a  check  for   the 
people — not  on  the  people,  but  for  the  people.     While  that  check 
is  efficient,  there  is  no  reason  to  fear  that  the  King  or  the  nobles 
will  oppress  the  people.     But  if  that  check  requires  checking,  how 
is  it  to  be  checked  ?     If  the  salt  shall  lose  its  savour,  wherewith 
shall  we  season  it  ?     The  distrust  with  which  the  nation  regards 
this  House  may  be  unjust.     But  what  then  ?     Can  you  remove 
that  distrust  ?     That  it  exists  cannot  be  denied.     That  it  is  an 
evil    cannot   be    denied.      That  it  is  an    increasing   evil    cannot 
be  denied.      One  Gentleman  tells  us  that  it  has  been  produced 
by   the   late    events    in    France    and    Belgium ;    another,    that 
it   is   the    effect   of    seditious   works   which    have    lately    been 
published.     If  this  feeling  be   of  origin  so  recent,  I  have  read 
history  to  little  purpose.     Sir,  this  alarming  discontent  is  not  the 
growth  of  a   day  or  of  a  year.     If  there  be  any  symptoms  by 
which  it  is  possible  to  distinguish  the  chronic  diseases  of  the  body 
politic  from  its  passing  inflammations,  all  these  symptoms  exist  in 
the  present  case.     The  taint  has  been  gradually  becoming  more 
extensive  and  more  malignant,  through  the  whole  life-time  of  two 
generations.      We  have  tried  anodynes.      We  have   tried  cruel 
operations.     What  are  we  to  try  now  ?     Who  flatters  himself  that 
he  can  turn  this  feeling  back  ?     Does  there  remain  any  argument 
which  escaped  the   comprehensive  intellect  of  Mr.  Burke,  or  the 
subtlety  of  Mr.  Wyndham  ?     Does  there  remain  any  species  of 
coercion  which  was  not  tried  by  Mr.  Pitt  and  by  Lord  London 
derry  ?     We  have  had  laws.     We  have  had  blood.     New  treasons 
have  been  created.     The  Press  has  been  shackled.     The  Habeas 
Corpus  Act  has  been  suspended.      Public  meetings  have  been 
prohibited.      The  event  has  proved   that  'these  expedients  were 


PARLIAMENTARi'     REFORM.  85 

mere  palliatives.  You  are  at  the  end  of  your  palliatives.  The 
evil  remains.  It  is  more  formidable  than  ever.  What  is  to  be 
done  ?  Under  such  circumstances,  a  great  measure  of  reconcilia 
tion,  prepared  by  the  Ministers  of  the  Crown,  has  been  brought 
before  us  in  a  manner  which  gives  additional  lustre  to  a  noble 
name,  inseparably  associated  during  two  centuries  with  the 
dearest  liberties  of  the  English  people.  I  will  not  say,  that  the 
measure  is  in  all  its  details  precisely  such  as  I  might  wish  it  to  be ; 
but  it  is  founded  on  a  great  and  a  sound  principle.  It  takes  away 
a  vast  power  from  a  few.  It  distributes  that  power  through  the 
great  mass  of  the  middle  order.  Every  man,  therefore,  who  thinks 
as'I  think,  is  bound  to  stand  firmly  by  Ministers,  who  are  resolved 
to  stand  or  fall  with  this  measure.  Were  I  one  of  them,  I  would 
sooner — infinitely  sooner — fall  with  such  a  measure  than  stand  by 
any  other  means  that  ever  supported  a  Cabinet.  My  hon.  friend, 
the  member  for  the  University  of  Oxford,  tells  us,  that  if  we  pass 
this  law,  England  will  soon  be  a  republic.  The  reformed  House 
of  Commons  will,  according  to  him,  before  it  has  sat  ten  years, 
depose  the  King,  and  expel  the  Lords  from  their  House.  Sir,  if 
my  hon.  friend  could  prove  this,  he  would  have  succeeded  in 
bringing  an  argument  for  democracy,  infinitely  stronger  than  any 
that  is  to  be  found  in  the  works  of  Paine.  His  proposition  is  in 
fact  this — that  our  monarchical  and  aristocratical  institutions  have 
no  hold  on  the  public  mind  of  England ;  that  these  institutions  are 
regarded  with  aversion  by  a  decided  majority  of  the  middle  class. 
This,  Sir,  I  say,  is  plainly  deducible  from  his  proposition ;  for  he 
tells  us,  that  the  Representatives  of  the  middle  class  will  inevitably 
abolish  royalty  and  nobility  within  ten  years :  and  there  is  surely 
no  reason  to  think  that  the  Representatives  of  the  middle  class 
will  be  more  inclined  to  a  democratic  revolution  than  their  con 
stituents.  Now,  Sir,  if  I  were  convinced  that  the  great  body  of 
the  middle  class  in  England  look  wi£h  aversion  on  monarchy  and 
aristocracy,  I  should  be  forced,  much  against  my  will,  to  come  to 


86  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

this  conclusion,  that  monarchical  and  aristocratical  institutions  are 
unsuited  to  this  country.  Monarchy  and  aristocracy,  valuable  and 
useful  as  I  think  them,  are  still  valuable  and  useful  as  means,  and 
not  as  ends.  The  end  of  government  is  the  happiness  of  the 
people  :  and  I  do  not  conceive  that,  in  a  country  like  this,  the 
happiness  of  the  people  can  be  promoted  by  a  form  of  government, 
in  which  the  middle  classes  place  no  confidence,  and  which  exists 
only  because  the  middle  classes  have  no  organ  by  which  to  make 
their  sentiments  known.  But,  Sir,  I  am  fully  convinced  that  the 
middle  classes  sincerely  wish  to  uphold  the  Royal  prerogatives, 
and  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  Peers.  What  facts  does  my 
hon.  friend  produce  in  support  of  his  opinion  ?  One  fact  only — 
and  that  a  fact  which  has  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  the 
question.  The  effect  of  this  Reform,  he  tells  us,  would  be,  to 
make  the  House  of  Commons  all-powerful.  It  was  all-powerful 
once  before,  in  the  beginning  of  1649.  Then  it  cut  off  the  head 
of  the  King,  and  abolished  the  House  of  Peers.  Therefore,  if  this 
Reform  should  take  place,  it  will  act  in  the  same  manner.  Now, 
Sir,  it  was  not  the  House  of  Commons  that  cut  off  the  head  of 
Charles  I. ;  nor  was  the  House  of  Commons  then  all-powerful. 
It  had  been  greatly  reduced  in  numbers  by  successive  expulsions. 
It  was  under  the  absolute  dominion  of  the  army.  A  majority  of 
the  House  was  willing  to  take  the  terms  offered  by  the  King. 
The  soldiers  turned  out  the  majority ;  and  the  minority — not  a 
sixth  part  of  the  whole  House — passed  those  votes  of  which  my 
hon.  friend  speaks — votes  of  which  the  middle  classes  disapproved 
then,  and  of  which  they  disapprove  still.  .  My  hon.  friend,  and 
almost  all  the  Gentlemen  who  have  taken  the  same  side  with  him 
in  this  Debate,  have  dwelt  much  on  the  utility  of  close  and  rotten 
boroughs.  It  is  by  means  of  such  boroughs,  they  tell  us,  that 
the  ablest  men  have  been  introduced  into  Parliament.  It  is  true 
that  many  distinguished  persons  have  represented  places  of  this 
description.  But,  Sir,  we  must  judge  of  a  form  of  government  by 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  87 

its  general  tendency,  not  by  happy  accidents.  Every  form  of 
government  has  its  happy  accidents.  Despotism  has  its  happy 
accidents.  Yet  we  are  not  disposed  to  abolish  all  constitutional 
checks,  to  place  an  absolute  master  over  us,  and  to  take  our  chance 
whether  he  may  be  a  Caligula  or  a  Marcus  Aurelius.  In  what 
ever  way  the  House  of  Commons  may  be  chosen,  some  able  men 
will  be  chosen  in  that  way  who  would  not  be  chosen  in  any  other 
way.  If  there  were  a  law  that  the  hundred  tallest  men  in 
England  should  be  Members  of  Parliament,  there  would  probably 
be  some  able  men  among  those  who  would  come  into  the  House 
by  virtue  of  this  law.  If  the  hundred  persons  whose  names  stand 
first  in  the  alphabetical  list  of  the  Court  Guide  were  made  Mem 
bers  of  Parliament,  there  would  probably  be  able  men  among 
them.  We  read  in  ancient  history,  that  a  very  able  king  was 
elected  by  the  neighing  of  his  horse.  But  we  shall  scarcely,  I 
think,  adopt  this  mode  of  election.  In  one  of  the  most  celebrated 
republics  of  antiquity — Athens — the  Senators  and  Magistrates  were 
chosen  by  lot ;  and  sometimes  the  lot  fell  fortunately.  Once,  for 
example,  Socrates  was  in  office.  A  cruel  and  unjust  measure  was 
brought  forward.  Socrates  resisted  it  at  the  hazard  of  his  own 
life.  There  is  no  event  in  Grecian  history  more  interesting  than 
that  memorable  resistance.  Yet  who  would  have  officers  assigned 
by  lot,  because  the  accident  of  the  lot  may  have  given  to  a  great 
and  good  man  a  power  which  he  would  probably  never  have 
attained  in  any  other  way  ?  We  must  judge,  as  I  said,  by  the 
general  tendency  of  a  system.  No  person  can  doubt  that  a  House 
of  Commons  chosen  freely  by  the  middle  classes  will  contain  many 
very  able  men.  I  do  not  say,  that  precisely  the  same  able  men 
who  would  find  their  way  into  the  present  House  of  Commons, 
will  find  their  way  into  the  reformed  House — but  that  is  not  the 
question.  No  particular  man  is  necessary  to  the  State.  We  may 
depend  on  it,  that  if  we  provide  the  country  with  free  institutions, 
those  institutions  will  provide  it  with  great  men.  There  is  another 


88  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

objection,  which,  I  think,  was  first  raised  by  the  hon.  and  learned 
member  for  Newport  (Mr.  H.  Twiss).  He  tells  us  that  the  elective 
franchise  is  property — that  to  take  it  away  from  a  man  who  has 
not  been  judicially  convicted  of  any  malpractices  is  robbery — that 
no  crime  is  proved  against  the  voters  in  the  close  boroughs — that 
no  crime  is  even  imputed  to  them  in  the  preamble  of  the  Bill — and 
that  to  disfranchise  them  without  compensation,  would  therefore 
be  an  act  of  revolutionary  tyranny.  The  hon.  and  learned  Gentle 
man  has  compared  the  conduct  of  the  present  Ministers  to  that  of 
those  odious  tools  of  power,  who,  towards  the  close  of  the  reign 
of  Charles  II.  seized  the  charters  of  the  Whig  Corporations. 
Now  there  was  another  precedent,  which  I  wonder  that  he  did  not 
recollect,  both  because  it  was  much  more  nearly  in  point  than  that 
to  which  he  referred,  and  because  my  noble  friend,  the  Paymaster 
of  the  Forces,  had  previously  alluded  to  it.  If  the  elective 
franchise  is  property — if  to  disfranchise  voters  without  a  crime 
proved,  or  a  compensation  given,  be  robbery — was  there  ever  such 
an  act  of  robbery  as  the  disfranchising  of  the  Irish  forty-shilling 
freeholders  ?  Was  any  pecuniary  compensation  given  to  them  ? 
Is  it  declared  in  the  preamble  of  the  bill  which  took  away  their 
votes,  that  they  had  been  convicted  of  any  offence  ?  Was  any 
judicial  inquiry  instituted  into  their  conduct?  Were  they  even 
accused  of  any  crime  ?  Or  say,  that  it  was  a  crime  in  the  electors 
of  Clare  to  vote  for  the  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman  who  now 
represents  the  county  of  Waterford — was  a  Protestant  forty- 
shilling  freeholder  in  Louth,  to  be  punished  for  the  crime  of  a 
Catholic  forty-shilling  freeholder  in  Clare  ?  If  the  principle  of  the 
hon.  and  learned  member  for  Newport  be  sound,  the  franchise  of 
the  Irish  peasant  was  property.  That  franchise,  the  Ministry  under 
which  the  hon.  and  learned  Member  held  office,  did  not  scruple  to 
take  away.  Will  he  accuse  the  late  Ministers  of  robbery  ?  If  not, 
how  can  he  bring  such  an  accusation  against  their  successors? 
Every  Gentleman,  I  think,  who  has  spoken  from  the  other  side  of 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  89 

the  House,  has  alluded  to  the  opinions  which  some  of  his  Majesty's 
Ministers  formerly  entertained  on  the  subject  of  Reform.  It  would 
be  officious  in  me,  Sir,  to  undertake  the  defence  of  Gentlemen  who 
are  so  well  able  to  defend  themselves.  I  will  only  say,  that,  in  my 
opinion,  the  country  will  not  think  worse  either  of  their  talents  or 
of  their  patriotism,  because  they  have  shown  that  they  can  profit 
by  experience,  because  they  have  learned  to  see  the  folly  of  delay 
ing  inevitable  changes.  There  are  others  who  ought  to  have 
learned  the  same  lesson.  I  say,  Sir,  that  there  are  those  who,  I 
should  have  thought,  must  have  had  enough  to  last  them  all  their 
lives  of  that  humiliation  which  follows  obstinate  and  boastful 
resistance  to  measures  rendered  necessary  by  the  progress  of 
society,  and  by  the  development  of  the  human  mind.  Is  it  possible 
that  those  persons  can  wish  again  to  occupy  a  position,  which  can 
neither  be  defended,  nor  surrendered  with  honour  ?  I  well  remem 
ber,  Sir,  a  certain  evening  in  the  month  of  May,  1827.  I  had  not 
then  the  honour  of  a  seat  in  this  House  ;  but  I  was  an  attentive 
observer  of  its  proceedings.  The  right  hon.  Baronet  opposite, 
(Sir  R.  Peel)  of  whom  personally  I  desire  to  speak  with  that  high 
respect  which  I  feel  for  his  talents  and  his  character,  but  of  whose 
public  conduct  I  must  speak  with  the  sincerity  required  by  my 
public  duty,  was  then,  as  he  is  now,  out  of  office.  He  had  just 
resigned  the  Seals  of  the  Home  Department,  because  he  conceived 
that  the  Administration  of  Mr.  Canning  was  favourable  to  the 
Catholic  claims.  He  rose  to  ask  whether  it  was  the  intention  of 
the  new  Cabinet  to  repeal  the  Test  and  Corporation  Acts,  and  to 
Reform  the  Parliament.  He  bound  up,  I  well  remember,  those 
two  questions  together;  and  he  declared,  that  if  the  Ministers 
should  either  attempt  to  repeal  the  Test  and  Corporation  Acts,  or 
bring  forward  a  measure  of  Parliamentary  Reform,  he  should 
think  it  his  duty  to  oppose  them  to  the  utmost.  Since  that 
declaration  was  made  nearly  four  years  have  elapsed  ;  and  what  is 
uow  the  state  of  the  three  questions  which  then  chiefly  agitated 


90  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

the  minds  of  men  ?  What  is  become  of  the  Test  and  Corporation 
Acts  ?  They  are  repealed.  By  whom  ?  By  the  late  Administra 
tion.  What  has  become  of  the  Catholic  disabilities  ?  They  are 
removed.  By  whom  ?  By  the  late  Administration.  The  question 
of  Parliamentary  Reform  is  still  behind.  But  signs,  of  which  it  is 
impossible  to  misconceive  the  import,  do  most  clearly  indicate, 
that,  unless  that  question  also  be  speedily  settled,  property  and 
order,  and  all  the  institutions  of  this  great  monarchy,  will  be 
exposed  to  fearful  peril.  Is  it  possible,  that  Gentlemen  long  versed 
in  high  political  affairs  cannot  read  these  signs?  Is  it  possible 
that  they  can  really  believe  that  the  Representative  system  of 
England,  Ouch  as  it  now  is,  will  last  till  the  year  1860  ?  If -not, 
for  what  would  they  have  us  wait?  Would  they  have  us  wait 
merely  that  we  may  show  to  all  the  world  how  little  we  have 
profited  by  our  own  recent  experience  ?  Would  they  have  us 
wrait,  that  we  may  once  again  hit  the  exact  point  where  we  can 
neither  refuse  with  authority,  nor  concede  with  grace  ?  Would 
they  have  us  wait,  that  the  numbers  of  the  discontented  party  may 
become  larger,  its  demands  higher,  its  feelings  more  acrimonious, 
its  organization  more  complete  ?  Would  they  have  us  wait  till 
the  whole  tragi-comedy  of  1827  has  been  acted  over  again;  till 
they  have  been  brought  into  office  by  a  cry  of  "  No  Reform  !"  to 
be  reformers,  as  they  were  once  before  brought  into  office  by  a  cry 
of  "  No  Popery  !"  to  be  emancipators  ?  Have  they  obliterated 
from  their  minds — gladly  perhaps  would  s'ome  among  them 
obliterate  from  their  minds — the  transactions  of  that  year  ?  And 
have  they  forgotten  all  the  transactions  of  the  succeeding  year  ? 
Have  they  forgotten  how  the  spirit  of  liberty  in  Ireland,  debarred 
from  its  natural  outlet,  found  a  vent  by  forbidden  passages  ?  Have 
they  forgotten  how  we  were  forced  to  indulge  the  Catholics  in  all 
the  license  of  rebels,  merely  because  we  chose  to  withhold  from 
them  the  liberties  of  subjects  ?  Do  they  wait  for  associations 
more  formidable  than  that  of  the  Corn  Exchange, — for  contribu- 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  91 

tions  larger  than  the  Rent, — for  agitators  more  violent  than  those 
who,  three  years  ago,  divided  with  the  King  and  the  Parliament, 
the  sovereignty  of  Ireland  ?  Do  they  wait  for  that  last  and  most 
dreadful  paroxysm  of  popular  rage, — for  that  last  and  most  cruel 
test  of  military  fidelity  ?  Let  them  wait,  if  their  past  experience 
shall  induce  them  to  think  that  any  high  honour  or  any  exquisite 
pleasure  is  to  be  obtained  by  a  policy  like  this.  Let  them  wait, 
if  this  strange  and  fearful  infatuation  be  indeed  upon  them, — that 
they  should  not  see  with  their  eyes,  or  hear  with  their  ears,  or 
understand  with  their  heart.  But  let  us  know  our  interest  and 
our  duty  better.  Turn  where  we  may, — within, — around, — the 
voice  of  great  events  is  proclaiming  to  us,  Reform,  that  you  may 
preserve.  Now,  therefore,  while  every  thing  at  home  and  abroad 
forebodes  ruin  to  those  who  persist  in  a  hopeless  struggle  against 
the  spirit  of  the  age, — now,  while  the  crash  of  the  proudest  throne 
of  the  continent  is  still  resounding  in  our  ears, — now,  while  the 
roof  of  a  British  palace  affords  an  ignominious  shelter  to  the  exiled 
heir  of  forty  kings, — now,  while  we  see  on  every  side  ancient 
institutions  subverted,  and  great  societies  dissolved, — now,  while 
the  heart  of  England  is  still  sound, — now,  while  the  old  feelings 
and  the  old  associations  retain  a  power  and  a  charm  which  may 
too  soon  pass  away, — now,  in  this  your  accepted  time, — now,  in 
this  your  day  of  salvation, — take  counsel,  not  of  prejudice, — not 
of  party  spirit, — not  of  the  ignominious  pride  of  a  fatal  con 
sistency, — but  of  history, — of  reason, — of  the  ages  which  are 
past, — of  the  signs  of  this  most  portentous  time.  Pronounce  in  a 
manner  worthy  of  the  expectation  with  which  this  great  Debate 
has  been  anticipated,  and  of  the  long  remembrance  which  it  will 
leave  behind.  Renew  the  youth  of  the  State.  Save  property 
divided  against  itself.  Save  the  multitude,  endangered  by  their 
own  ungovernable  passions.  Save  the  aristocracy,  endangered  by 
its  own  unpopular  power.  Save  the  greatest,  and  fairest,  and 
most  highly  civilized  community  that  ever  existed,  from  calamities 


92  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

which  may  in  a  few  days  sweep  away  all  the  rich  heritage  of  so 
many  ages  of  wisdom  and  glory.  The  danger  is  terrible.  The 
time  is  short.  If  this  Bill  should  be  rejected,  I  pray  to  God  that 
none  of  those  who  concur  in  rejecting  it  may  ever  remember  their 
votes  with  unavailing  regret,  amidst  the  wreck  of  laws,  the 
confusion  of  ranks,  the  spoliation  of  property,  and  the  dissolution 
of  social  order. 


93 


ON  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.* 
JULY  5,  1831.  « 

On  the  Adjourned  Debate  on  the  Second  Reading  of  Lord  John 
RusseWs  Parliamentary  Reform  Bill  for  Ireland. 

BEFORE  I  proceed  to  examine  what  may  be  termed  the  political 
arguments  applicable  to  the  question,  I  wish  to  notice  one  position, 
which,  if  it  were  a  sound  one,  I  admit  would  be  decisive  against 
Reform.  That  position  is — that  the  elective  franchise  is  property 
— as  much  property  as  the  dividends  of  the  fundholder,  or  the  rents 
of  the  landowner.  It  must  either  be  property  or  not  property  ; 
and  if  it  be  property,  to  seize  what  belongs  to  the  rich  man,  in 
order  to  give  it  to  the  poor  man,  would  be  to  break  up  the  very 
foundation  of  social  order.  I  support  this  measure  because  I  am 
convinced  that  the  elective  franchise  is  not  property,  and  that  the 
Bill  ought  not,  therefore,  to  give  compensation.  Looking  back  to 
the  earliest  times,  we  shall  find,  that  if  the  elective  franchise  be 
property,  the  present  system  is  founded  upon  the  most  monstrous 
system  of  injustice  and  robbery.  The  great  disfranchisement  of 
the  reign  of  Henry  VI.,  was  an  act  of  unheard-of  plunder,  and  the 
same  remark  will  apply  to  the  Reform  introduced  by  Oliver  Crom 
well.  I  will  not  argue  on  the  merit  or  demerit  of  his  system,  but 
this  I  will  say,  that  the  best  and  wisest  men  of  that,  and  subsequent 
times,  never  treated  the  elective  franchise  as  property.  I  speak  of 
all  the  debates  in  which  Maynard  and  Hale  partook  under  the 
vigorous  Oliver,  and  his  feeble  successor.  Sir  Henry  Vane  said, 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  iv.  1831,  p.  773-783. 


94  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

that  it  was  a  Reform  which  the  Long  Parliament  would  havre  made 
had  it  lasted ;  and  Lord  Clarendon  declared,  that  it  was  a  Reform 
which  the  King  ought  to  have  made  had  he  then  come  to  the 
Crown.  Lord  Clarendon,  the  most  distinguished  of  royalists,  who 
leaned  too  much  to  legal  refinements  on  political  questions, 
describes  it  as  a  Reform  which  was  fit  to  be  made  by  a  more  war 
rantable  method,  and  in  better  times.  This,  then,  I  say,  is  that 
more  warrantable  method;  this  that  better  time.  What  Cromwell 
attempted  in  a  country  lately  convulsed  by  civil  war,  and  still 
agitated  by  religious  factions,  we  are  now  called  upon  to  accom 
plish  in  a  state  of  perfect  peace,  and  under  a  Prince  whose  title  is 
as  undisputed,  as  his  person  is  beloved.  The  only  circumstances 
which,  in  the  opinion  of  Lord  Clarendon,  were  wanting  in  the 
Reform  of  Cromwell,  we  find  in  the  Reform  of  William  the  Fourth. 
If  the  elective  franchise  were  property,  these,  I  contend,  were  most 
extensive  and  sweeping  confiscations^;  but,  for  the  sake  of  the  great 
institution  of  property,  for  which  all  other  institutions  exist,  which 
is  the  source  of  all  knowledge  and  of  all  industry,  I  do  most 
deeply  lament  to  hear  the  sanctity  that  belongs  to  property  claimed 
by  that  which  is  not  property.  If  you  mix  political  abuses  with 
the  institution  of  property,  you  must  expect,  that  property  will 
contract  the  odium  of  political  abuses ;  and  people  will  imagine 
that  there  is  no  more  immorality  in  taking  away  a  man's  estate, 
than  in  disfranchising  Old  Sarum.  If  you  bind  them  up  that  .they 
may  stand  together,  take  care  that  they  do  not  fall  together. 
Many  have  before  used  the  argument  which  we  heard  repeated  last 
night,  and  which,  if  I  mistake  not,  was  originally  employed  by  the 
right  hon.  Baronet  (Sir  R.  Peel).  It  is  true,  say  they,  that  the  Act 
of  1829  was  a  confiscation  of  the  property  of  the  40s.  freeholders 
of  Ireland,  and  show  us  a  case  of  necessity  equally  urgent,  and  we 
will  vote  for  Reform.  Let  them,  however,  beware  how  they  set  a 
precedent  for  the  invasion  of  property  on  the  ground  of  political 
convenience.  Considering  the  elective  franchise  as  not  property, 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  95 

we  have  only  to  discuss  and  decide  this  question — whether  it  is 
expedient  at  the  present  moment  to  touch  it.  The  only  argument 
I  have  heard  on  this  subject  was  that  used  by  a  noble  Lord  (Por- 
chester)  who  spoke  for  the  first  time  last  night,  and  whom  it  gave 
me  great  pleasure  to  hear.  The  noble  Lord  referred  to  the  history 
of  France,  and  particularly  to  recent  events  in  that  country ;  but  I 
must  question  the  noble  Lord's  arguments,  as  well  as  his  facts.  I 
must  deny,  that  there  was  a  fluctuation  from  a  desire  for  a  violent 
change  from  monarchical  to  a  republican  form  of  government,  or 
that  it  was  the  fluctuation  of  the  same  party.  Different  opinions 
did,  no  doubt,  prevail  under  different  administrations — under  de 
Gazes,  Villele,  and  other  administrations ;  but  then  these  different 
opinions  were  expressed  by  Chambers  differently  constituted.  The 
Chamber  of  Deputies  of  1815  was  differently  constituted  from  that 
of  1819,  and  that  of  1824  differed  from  both.  The  Chamber  of 
1827,  indeed,  though  chosen  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Chamber 
of  1824,  took  a  very  different  course.  But  this  difference  of  politi 
cal  feeling  in  the  Representative  body,  chosen  under  different  cir 
cumstances,  was  an  every-day  case.  When  Queen  Anne  dis 
charged  her  Whig  Ministry,  she  succeeded  also  in  getting  a  House 
of  Commons,  the  majority  of  which  were  Tories.  On  the  acces 
sion  of  George  1st,  another  change  took  place,  and  a  House  of 
Commons,  chiefly  Whigs,  were  returned.  In  the  same  way  a  total, 
change  took  place  in  the  political  character  of  the  Commons  in  the 
election  of  1784.  I  protest  against  the  analogy  drawn  by  the 
noble  Lord,  and  I  deny  that  the  cases  of  England  and  France  are 
alike.  I  deny,  that  we  have  had  any  parties  here  even  remotely 
resembling  the  revolutionary  and  counter-revolutionary  parties  of 
France.  T  deny  that  there  is  any  analogy  between  the  two  Houses 
of  Peers.  I  regard  the  Chamber  of  Peers  of  France  as  an  unfor 
tunate  experiment — as  a  kind  of  forced  production — an  exotic  : 
there  was  nothing  in  the  property  or  in  the  state  of  society  in 
France,  which  required  such  an  institution  ;  it  had  no  root  in  the 


93  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

soil,  and  its  decline  and  fall  need  not  give  the  aristocracy  of  Eng 
land  the  slightest  alarm.  The  principal,  and  most  plausible  argu 
ment  against  the  Reform  Bill  is  this — mark  how  rich,  how  great, 
how  happy,  this  country  is,  and  has  been  ;  the  admired  of  all  men, 
and  the  envied  of  foreign  nations  ;  will  you,  then,  change  a  system 
which  has  produced  so  many,  and  such  lasting  benefits  ?  I  am 
far  from  denying  that  England  is  a  great  and  prosperous  country. 
I  am  as  far  from  denying,  that  she  owes  much  of  her  greatness  and 
prosperity  to  the  form  of  her  government ;  but  government  and 
society  are  cause  and  effect — they  re-act  on  each  other.  No  doubt 
the  government  of  the  Czar  Peter  did  much  for  Russia  ;  but  would 
it  be  an  argument  against  giving  her  free  institutions,  that  despot 
ism  had  procured  her  civilization  ?  The  whole  of  history  shews, 
that  all  great  revolutions  have  been  produced  by  a  disproportion 
between  society  and  its  institutions ;  for  while  society  has  grown, 
its  institutions  have  not  kept  pace  and  accommodated  themselves 
to  its  improvements.  When  we  are  told  of  the  admiration  of  dis 
tinguished  foreigners  of  all  ages  for  the  Constitution  of  England,  it 
seems  to  be  thought,  that  their  applause  has  been  bestowed  upon 
the  same  institutions  which,  in  the  lapse  of  centuries,  have  under 
gone  no  change.  Philip  de  Comines  said,  that  the  English  were 
the  best-governed  people  in  the  world,  and  when  Montesquieu  gave 
jthem  the  same  praise,  were  both  writers  speaking  of  the  same  insti 
tutions  ?  Certainly  not.  The  history  of  England  is  the  history  of 
a  succession  of  Reforms ;  and  the  very  reason  that  the  people  of 
England  are  great  and  happy  is,  that  their  history  is  the  history  of 
Reform.  The  great  Charter,  the  first  assembling  of  Parliament, 
the  Petition  of  Right,  the  Revolution,  and  lastly,  this  great  mea 
sure — are  all  proofs  of  my  position — are  all  progressive  stages  in 
the  progress  of  society — and  I  am  fully  convinced  that  every  argu 
ment  urged  against  the  step  we  are  now  called  upon  to  take  might 
have  been  advanced  with  equal  justice  against  any  of  the  other 
changes  I  have  enumerated.  Jit  is  the  principle  of  "  Hume's  His- 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  97 

tory,"  as  every  body  knows,  that  the  Stuarts  governed  better  than 
the  Tudors ;  but,  suppose  any  man  had  risen  in  the  Convention 
Parliament,  and  said,  "  how  great  and  happy  we  are — we  have  ten 
times  as  many  inhabitants,  and  merchants  ten  times  as  wealthy  as 
under  the  Tudors  ;  we  have  been  most  admirably  governed — we 
are  not  slaves  under  the  Dey  of  Tripoli,  but  free  subjects  of  a  gene 
rous  Monarch,  and  why  should  we  change  ?"  The  answer  is  plain. 
If  we  had  been  the  slaves  of  the  Dey  of  Tripoli,  we  should  not 
have  known  better,  but  the  change  in  our  situations  has  educated 
us  for  improvements  in  our  institutions.  At  the  present  moment 
we  everywhere  see  society  outgrowing  our  institutions.  Wher 
ever  we  turn  our  eyes,  we  behold  a  nation  great  and  civilized — 
with  a  soil  cultivated  to  a  degree  of  fertility  unknown  to  other 
countries — with  the  perfection  of  all  discoveries  in  physical  science, 
to  promote  the  conveniences  of  life — standing  pre-eminent  among 
the  civilized  world  in  everything  that  depends  upon  the  skill  and 
intelligence  of  individuals,  or  combinations  of  individuals — and  yet, 
with  laws  and  institutions  that  little  command  the  respect  and 
admiration  of  mankind.  Our  roads,  our  bridges,  our  steam- 
engines,  our  manufactures,  our  modes  of  conveyance,  our  demand 
for  labor,  and  our  rewards  of  ingenuity,  surpass  those  of  any  nation 
in  the  ancient  or  modern  world,  and  extort  the  admiration  of  rival 
States ;  but,  let  me  ask,  are  foreigners  equally  struck  with  the 
excellence  of  our  legislative  enactments — with  the  modes  of  con 
veying  land,  or  of  conducting  actions — and  with  a  Penal  Code  that 
seems  purposely  contrived  to  puzzle  and  ensnare  ?  These  are  mat 
ters  in  which  the  Legislature  has  shown  its  skill,  as  our  manufac 
turers  have  shown  theirs,  but  with  a  far  different  result.  Let  us 
contrast  our  commerce,  wealth,  and  perfect  civilization,  with  our 
Penal  Laws — at  once  barbarous  and  inefficient — the  preposterous 
fictions  of  pleading — the  mummery  of  fines  and  recoveries— the 
chaos  of  precedents,  and  the  bottomless  pit  of  Chancery.  Here  we 
see  the  barbarism  of  the  thirteenth  century  coupled  with  the  civi- 

VOL.  I.  5 


98  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

lization  of  the  nineteenth,  and  we  see  too,  that  the  barbarism 
belongs  to  the  Government,  and  the  civilization  to  the  people. 
Then  I  say,  that  this  incongruous  state  of  things  cannot  continue  ; 
and  if  we  do  not  terminate  it  with  wisdom,  ere  long  we  shall  find 
it  ended  by  violence.  Because  I  think  we  have  arrived  at  the 
point,  when  a  change  is  both  wise  and  necessary,  I  support  this 
Bill  with  heart  and  soul ;  and  I  shall  be  proud  to  the  last  hour  of 
my  life,  of  the  part  I  have  been  able  to  take  in  this  great  act  of 
reconciliation  between  the  state  of  society  and  the  condition  of  its 
institutions.  We  were  told  in  the  last  Parliament,  that  this  is  not 
the  Reform  for  which  the  people  petitioned  ;  and  if  it  be  not,  look 
ing  at  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  received,  nothing  can  prove 
more  decisively  the  blessed  effect  of  seasonable  concession.  Never 
was  there  so  signal  an  example  of  that  wise  policy  which  conducts 
the  great  revolutions  of  public  opinion  to  a  happy  and  peaceful 
conclusion,  and  renders  the  very  act  of  extending  liberty  the  secu 
rity  for  social  order.  It  is  not  strange,  that  the  people,  denied  their 
reasonable  claims,  should  become  unreasonable ;  and,  when 
repulsed  by  those  who  ought  to  hear  'them,  should  fly  to  dema 
gogues.  We  have  seen  how  excitement  was  created,  and  we  have 
seen,  too,  how  it  may  be  allayed.  The  true  secret  of  the  power  of 
agitators  is,  the  obstinacy  of  rulers  ;  and  liberal  governments  make 
a  moderate  people.  Did  v .  not  hear  in  the  beginning  of  the  last 
Session  the  Prime  Minister  declare,  that  there  should  be  no  Reform, 
and  what  was  the  consequence  ?  The  people  were  excited  to  such 
a  state,  that  it  seemed  as  if  a  dissolution  of  social  order  was  at 
hand.  So  near  at  hand  was  it  thought,  that  the  Minister  of  the 
Crown  did  not  dare  to  show  his  Sovereign  in  his  capital.  I  will 
venture  to  say,  that  now  there  is  not  a  nation  in  the  world  more 
sincerely  or  more  justly  attached  to  the  person  and  government  of 
their  King  than  the  English,  or  more  disposed  to  strengthen  the 
hands  of  the  public  authorities  in  the  enforcement  of  the  law.  I 
do  not,  however,  wonder  that  a  measure  which  removes  discontent 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  99 

should  excite  the  hatred  of  two  classes — the  friends  of  corruption, 
and  the  agents  of  sedition.  All  who  love  abuses  because  they  pro 
fit  by  them,  and  all  who  take  advantage  of  disaffection  which 
abuses  occasion,  are  naturally  leagued  against "  a  Bill,  which,  by 
making  the  Government  pure,  renders  the  people  attached.  Those 
who  stand  at  the  two  extremities  of  political  opinions  play  into 
each  other's  hands  on  an  occasion  like  the  present ;  the  friends  of 
despotism,  on  the  one  hand,  are  furnished  by  Jacobin  agitators 
with  pretexts  for  oppression  ;  and  Jacobin  agitators,  on  the  other 
hand,  are  provided  by  the  friends  of  despotism  with  arguments 
against  Government.  I  am  rejoiced  to  see,  that  the  people  of  Eng 
land  know  how  to  appreciate  the  monstrous  coalition  between  the 
enemies  of  all  order  and  the  opponents  of  all  liberty.  England 
has  spoken,  and  spoken  out,  from  every  part  of  the  kingdom  where 
the  voice  of  the  people  was  allowed  to  be  heard  ;  it  has  been  heard 
from  our  mightiest  sea-ports — from  our  manufacturing  towns — 
from  the  capital — from  our  populous  counties.  As  far  as  my  cal 
culations  have  gone  on  the  late  returns,  from  almost  all  those 
situations  a  suitable  answer  has  been  returned  to  that  truly  royal 
voice  which  demands  the  opinion  of  the  nation.  Here  we  are  now, 
nearly  all  Reformers — all  Reformers  in  some  sense  or  other — in 
some  degree  or  other — for  not  one  Member  has  declared  himself 
opposed  to  the  principle  of  Reform  ;  at  least  some  hint  has  been 
thrown  out  that  he  is  not  adverse  to  all  change — and  I  most 
thoroughly  and  cordially  agree  with  the  noble  Paymaster  of 
the  Forces,  that,  like  the  Scotch  army  at  Dunbar,  the  enemies 
of  Reform  have  placed  themselves  at  the  mercy  of  their  adver 
saries.  Their  arguments  and  their  abuse  might  be  equally 
directed  against  all  Reforms,  for  all  might  be  asserted  to  be  revo 
lutionary,  anarchical,  and  demoralizing.  It  has  been  said,  that 
the  Reform  Bill  introduced  for  England  is  not  the  Reform  for 
which  the  people  petitioned.  Will  that  Reform  Bill  which  is  to 
be  proposed  by  hon.  Gentlemen  opposite,  be  that  Reform  for  which 


100  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

the  people  have  petitioned  ?  If  this  Bill,  now  brought  forward  by 
the  ancient  friends  and  advocates  of  the  people,  be  not  the  Reform 
which  is  consonant  with  popular  feeling,  what  will  it  be  if  brought 
forward  by  those  who  have  been  always  opposed  to  popular  feel 
ing,  and  who  can  adduce  no  reason  for  presenting  it  except  intimi 
dation  ?  The  hon.  member  for  Aldborough,  and  other  hon.  Mem 
bers,  have  complained  of  certain  anomalies  in  the  Bill.  They 
object  to  the  measure,  that  it  gives  one  county  twelve  Members, 
while  a  larger  has  got  only  ten — that  such  a  town  as  Brighton  is 
to  have  only  one  Member,  while  another  less  considerable  is  to 
have  two.  This  may  be  an  excellent  argument  against  the  details 
of  the  measure  ;  but  it  cannot  in  the  slightest  degree  affect  the 
principle.  Will  they  bring  forward  an  Amendment  to  remove 
these  anomalies  ?  Or  do  they  mean  to  assert  that  a  new  Rule  of 
Three  sum  must  be  worked  upon  the  occasion  of  every  census  ? 
If  not,  why  do  they  censure  the  Bill  because  it  contains  anomalies  ? 
But,  after  all,  it  contains  fewer  anomalies  than  exist  in  the  present 
system  [cries  of  "  No,  wo"].  I  speak  with  arithmetical  precision. 
In  the  proposed  system  there  is  no  disproportion  so  great — none 
which  can  make  up  the  difference  between  Old  Sarum  and  Man 
chester.  Hon.  Gentlemen  opposite  would,  in  my  mind,  do  better 
to  answer  arguments  than  to  interrupt  speeches.  If  there  be  ano 
malies,  it  is  you,  and  not  we,  who  are  bound  to  propose  the  remedy 
— so  that — 

"  Each  fair  burgh,  numerically  free, 
Shall  choose  its  Members  by  the  Rule  of  Three." 

It  is  asked  by  the  hon.  Gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  will  this 
Reform  be  final  ?  In  return,  I  ask  you,  will  your  Reform  be  final  I 
The  same,  and  stronger  reasons  against  a  Reform  being  final,  apply 
themselves  to  any  you  would  make.  Last  year,  when  there  was  a 
question  of  giving  Representatives  to  the  greatest  manufacturing 
towns  in  the  world,  the  same  argument  was  brought  forward.  It 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  101 

was  said,  it  would  only  be  the  prelude  to  greater  changes.  Such 
a  Reform  could  not  be  final ;  how,  then,  could  you  pretend  to  say, 
that  any  Reform  you  propose  would  be  final  ?  Now,  Sir,  if  I  am 
asked  my  opinion,  I  do  declare  that  this  Reform  of  ours  is  final ; 
but  that  any  which  fell  short  of  it  would  not  be.  When  I  say 
final,  I  mean  that  it  will  be  final  for  that  space  of  time  to  which  we 
can  look  forward,  and  for  which  alone  we  can  attempt  to  legislate. 
In  the  course  of  one  hundred  years,  we  may  change  to  have  docks 
as  extensive  as  those  of  Liverpool  in  the  Hebrides ;  and  a  manu 
facturing  town  as  large  as  Manchester,  in  the  county  of  Galway. 
The  same  causes  are  still  in  action,  which,  in  many  places,  have 
converted  hamlets  into  great  towns,  and  barren  heaths  into  corn 
fields  and  meadows.  For  a  country  so  altered  and  improved  in  its 
condition,  we  cannot  pretend  to  legislate  ;  all  that  we  can  do  is  to 
set  those  who  shall  then  exist  the  signal  example  of  the  mode  and 
spirit  in  which  such  a  reform  as  their  circumstances  require  should 
take  place.  In  the  only  way,  therefore,  in  which  a  public  man 
ought  to  use  the  word  final,  I  use  it ;  and  thus  I  declare  this 
Reform  Bill  will  be  final.  But  as  to  the  other  Bill,  if  the  hon. 
Gentlemen  opposite  should  succeed  in  any  branch  of  the  Legisla 
ture  in  throwing  out  this  measure  of  ours — if  they  should  succeed 
in  displacing  the  present  Administration — an,d  if  they  should  suc 
ceed  in  obtaining  a  House  of  Commons  which  would  support  a 
new  ministry — I  ask  them  what  they  would  do  ?  Sir,  there  can 
be  no  difficulty  in  foreseeing  and  describing  the  progress  down 
wards.  First,  there  would  be  a  mock  Reform — a  Bassetlaw 
Reform,  worthy  of  those  who,  when  a  delinquent  borough  was  to 
be  punished,  refused  to  transfer  the  franchise  to  a  populous  manu 
facturing  town,  but  threw  it  into  neighboring  hundreds — worthy 
of  those  who  refused  to  give  Representatives  to  the  three  greatest 
manufacturing  towns  in  the  world — a  Reform  fraught  with  all  the 
evils  of  change,  and  not  a  single  benefit — a  Reform  depriving  the 
Government  of  the  foundation  of  prescription,  without  substituting 


102  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

the  foundation  of  reason  and  the  public  good — a  Reform  which 
would  unsettle  establishments,  without  appeasing  discontent — a, 
Reform  by  which  the  people  would  be  at  once  encouraged  and 
exasperated — encouraged  by  the  sense  of  their  own  importance, 
and  the  evident  effect  of  their  power,  and  exasperated  because  what 
they  obtained  was  not  what  they  had  demanded.  Then  would 
come  agitation — libels  would  abound — the  Press  would  be  excited 
— and  demagogues  would  harangue  in  every  street.  Coercion 
would  only  aggravate  the  evil.  This  is  no  age,  this  is  no  country 
for  the  war  of  power  against  the  war  of  opinions.  Those  enemies 
to  the  public  quiet — agitators  and  demagogues,  who  would  be 
driven  back  by  this  Reform  Bill  to  their  proper  insignificance — 
would  become  truly  powerful,  till,  at  the  last,  the  law  would  be 
evaded  and  opposed  till  it  became  a  mockery,  and  England  would 
be  reduced  to  the  same  condition  in  which  Ireland  was  placed  at 
the  end  of  the  year  1828.  Then  amidst  the  cheers  of  the  Whigs, 
who  would  be  occupying  their  old  places  on  that  side  of  the  House, 
and  the  grief  and  dismay  of  the  Tories,  who  are  now  again  trust 
ing,  to  be  again  betrayed,  some  right  hon.  Gentleman  would  rise 
from  these  benches — as  did,  on  the  1st  of  March,  the  Paymaster 
of  the  Forces,  to  propose  that  Bill  on  which  the  hearts  of  the 
people  are  fixed.  Then  should  we  flatter  ourselves  that  all  had 
been  clone  ;  but  not  so.  The  gratitude  and  delight  with  which  the 
measure  would  be  now  received,  could  no  longer  exist  when  the 
materials  of  agitation  were  ready.  They  would  find  themselves  in 
the  condition  of  those  in  the  old  stories,  who  evoked  the  fiends. 
When  once  the  evil  spirit  is  called  up,  you  must  find  him  work,  or 
he  will  tear  you  in  pieces.  The  noble  Lord  opposite  spoke  of  the 
Day  of  Sacrifices.  Let  him  remember  it  was  afterwards  named  the ' 
Day  of  Dupes,  not  because  it  was  a  Day  of  Sacrifices,  but  of  sacri 
fices  delayed  too  long.  It  was  because  the  French  aristocracy 
refused  Reform  in  1*783,  that  there  was  Revolution  in  1789.  But 
we  need  not  go  far  to  see  the  danger  of  delaying  inevitable  conces- 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  103 

sions.  Let  us  look  to  Ireland.  la  not  one  such  instance,  when 
made  practically,  enough  to  convince  one  generation  ?  I  feel,  that 
some  apology  is  due  for  the  tone  I  have  assumed  ;  I  fear,  that  it 
may  be  deemed  unbecoming  in  me  to  make  any  application  to  the 
fears  of  Members  of  this  House.  But  surely  I  may,  without 
reproach,  address  myself  to  their  honest  fears.  It  is  well  to  talk 
of  opposing  a  firm  front  to  sedition,  and  of  using  vigorous  means 
to  put  down  agitation.  Those  phrases  are  used  very  properly, 
when  they  refer  to  some  temporary  excitement — to  some  partial 
disturbances,  as  in  1780 — to  stifle  which,  the  show  of  force  and 
determination  on  the  part  of  a  Government  is  alone  needed — then 
it  is  well  to  show  a  bold  front ;  but  woe  to  the  Government  that 
cannot  distinguish  between  a  nation  and  a  mob — woe  to  the 
Government  that  thinks  a  great  and  steady  movement  of  mind  is 
to  be  put  down  like  a  riot.  This  error  has  been  twice  fatal  to  the 
Bourbons — it  may  be  fatal  to  the  Legislature  of  this  country  if  they 
should  venture  to  foster  it.  I  do  believe,  that  the  irrevocable 
moment  has  arrived.  Nothing  can  prevent  the  passing  of  this 
noble  law — this  second  Bill  of  Rights.  I  do  call  it  the  second  Bill 
of  Rights  ;  and  so  will  the  country  call  it ;  and  so  will  our  children. 
I  call  it  a  greater  Charter  of  the  liberties  of  England.  Eighteen 
hundred  and  thirty-one  is  destined  to  exhibit  the  first  example  of 
an  established,  of  a  deep-rooted  system  removed  without  blood 
shed,  or  violence,  or  rapine — all  points  being  debated — every  punc 
tilio  observed — the  peaceful  industry  of  the  country  never  for  a 
moment  checked  or  compromised — and  the  authority  of  the  law 
not  for  one  instant  suspended.  These  are  things  of  which  we  may 
well  be  proud.  These  are  things  which  make  us  look  with  confi 
dence  and  good  hope  to  the  future  destinies  of  the  human  race. 
These  are  things  that  enable  us  to  look  forward  to  a  long  series  of 
tranquil  and  happy  years,  in  which  we  shall  have  a  popular 
Government  and  a  loyal  people  ;  and  in  which  war,  if  war  be 
inevitable,  shall  find  us  a  united  nation — of  years  pre-eminently 


104  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

distinguished  by  the  progress  of  art  and  science,  and  of  know 
ledge  generally  ;  by  the  diminution  of  the  public  burthens,  and  by 
all  those  victories  of  peace  in  which,  more  than  in  the  most  splen 
did  military  successes,  consist  the  true  prosperity  of  States  and  the 
glory  of  Statesmen.  Sir,  it  is  with  these  feelings,  and  with  these 
hopes,  that  I  give  my  most  cordial  assent  to  the  measure,  consider 
ing  it  desirable  in  itself,  and  at  the  present  moment,  and  in  the 
present  temper  of  the  people,  indispensably  necessary  to  the  repose 
of  the  empire  and  the  stability  of  the  Throne. 


10/5 


ON  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM  * 

SEPTEMBER  20,  1831. 
On  the  third  reading  of  the  Reform  Bill  for  England. 

IT  is  not  without  great  diffidence,  Sir,  that  I  rise  to  address  you 
on  a  subject  which  has  been  nearly  exhausted.  Indeed,  I  should  not 
have  risen  had  I  not  thought  that  though  the  arguments  on  this 
question  are  for  the  most  part  old,  our  situation  at  present  is  in 
a  great  measure  new.  At  length  the  Reform  Bill,  having  passed 
without  vital  injury  through  all  the  dangers  which  threatened  it 
during  a  long  and  minute  discussion,  from  the  attacks  of  its  ene 
mies  and  from  the  dissensions  of  its  friends,  comes  before  us  for  our 
final  ratification,  altered,  indeed,  in  some  of  its  details  for  the 
better,  and  in  some  for  the  worse,  but  in  its  great  principles  still 
the  same  Bill  which,  on  the  1st  of  March,  was  proposed  to  the  late 
Parliament — the  same  Bill  which  was  received  with  joy  and  grati 
tude  by  the  whole  nation — the  same  Bill  which,  in  an  instant,  took 
away  the  power  of  interested  agitators,  and  united  in  one  firm 
body  sects  of  sincere  Reformers — the  same  Bill  which,  at  the  late 
election,  received  the  approbation  of  almost  every  great  constituent 
body  in  the  empire.  With  a  confidence  which  discussion  has  only 
strengthened — with  an  assured  hope  of  great  public  blessings  .  if 
the  wish  of  the  nation  shall  be  gratified — with  a  deep  and  solemn 
apprehension  of  great  public  calamities  if  that  wish  shall  be  disap 
pointed — I  for  the  last  time  give  my  most  hearty  assent  to  this, 
noble  law,  destined,  I  trust,  to  be  the  parent  of  many  good  laws, 


*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  vii.  1831,  p.  297-311. 
5* 


106  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

and,  through  a  long  series  of  years,  to  secure  the  repose  and 
promote  the  prosperity  of  my  country.  When  I  say  that  I  expect 
this  Bill  to  promote  the  prosperity  of  the  country,  I  by  no  means 
intend  to  encourage  those  chimerical  hopes  which  the  hon.  and 
learned  member  for  Rye,  who  has  so  much  distinguished  himself 
in  this  debate,  has  imputed  to  the  Reformers.  The  people,  he 
says,  are  for  the  Bill,  because  they  expect  that  it  will  immediately 
relieve  all  their  distresses.  Sir,  I  believe  that  very  few  of  that 
large  and  respectable  class  which  we  are  now  about  to  admit  to  a 
share  of  political  power,  entertain  any  such  absurd  expectation. 
They  expect  relief,  I  doubt  not,  and  I  doubt  not  also  that  they 
will  find  it.  But  sudden  relief  they  are  far  too  wise  to  expect. 
The  Bill,  says  the  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman,  is  good  for  nothing 
— it  is  merely  theoretical — it  removes  no  real  and  sensible  evil — 
it  will  not  give  the  people  more  work,  or  higher  wages,  or  cheaper 
bread.  Undoubtedly,  Sir,  the  Bill  will  not  immediately  give  all 
those  things  to  the  people.  But  will  any  institutions  give  them  all 
those  things  ?  Do  the  present  institutions  of  the  country  secure  to 
them  these  advantages  ?  If  we  are  to  pronounce  the  Reform  Bill 
good  for  nothing,  because  it  will  not  at  once  raise  the  nation  from 
distress  to  prosperity,  what  are  we  to  say  of  that  system  under 
which  the  nation  has  been  of  late  sinking  from  prosperity  into 
distress  ?  The  defect  is  not  in  the  Reform  Bill,  but  in  the  very 
nature  of  government.  On  the  physical  condition  of  the  great 
body  of  the  people,  government  acts  not  as  a  specific,  but  as  an 
alterative.  Its  operation  is  powerful,  indeed,  and  certain,  but 
gradual  and  indirect.  The  end  of  government  is  not  directly  to 
make  the  people  rich,  but  to  protect  them  in  making  themselves 
rich — and  a  Government  which  attempts  more  than  this  is 
precisely  the  Government  which  is  likely  to  perform  less.  Govern 
ments  do  not  and  cannot  support  the  people.  We  have  no  mira 
culous  powers — we  have  not  the  rod  of  the  Hebrew  lawgiver — we 
cannot  rain  down  bread  on  the  multitude  from  Heaven — we 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  107 

cannot  smite  the  rock  and  give  them  to  drink.  We  can  give 
them  only  freedom  to  employ  their  industry  to  the  best  advantage, 
and  security  in  the  enjoyment  of  what  their  industry  has  acquired. 
These  advantages  it  is  our  duty  to  give  at  the  smallest  possible 
cost.  The  diligence  and  forethought  of  individuals  will  thus  have 
fair  play ;  and  it  is  only  by  the  diligence  and  forethought  of  indi 
viduals  that  the  community  can  become  prosperous.  I  am  not 
aware  that  his  Majesty's  Ministers,  or  any  of  the  supporters  of 
the  Bill,  have  encouraged  the  people  to  hope,  that  Reform  will 
remove  their  distresses,  in  any  other  way  than  by  this  indirect 
process.  By  this  indirect  process  the  Bill  will,  I  feel  assured,  con 
duce  to  the  national  prosperity.  If  it  had  been  passed  fifteen  years 
ago,  it  would  have  saved  us  from  our  present  embarrassments.  If 
we  pass  it  now,  it  will  gradually  extricate  us  from  them.  It  will 
secure  to  us  a  House  of  Commons,  which,  by  preserving  peace,  by 
destroying  monopolies,  by  taking  away  unnecessary  public 
burthens,  by  judiciously  distributing  necessary  public  burthens, 
will,  in  the  progress  of  time,  greatly  improve  our  condition.  This 
it  will  do  ;  and  those  who  blame  it  for  not  doing  more,  blame  it  for 
not  doing  what  no  Constitution,  no  code  of  laws,  ever  did  or  ever 
will  do ;  what  no  legislator,  who  was  not  an  ignorant  and  unprin 
cipled  quack,  ever  ventured  to  promise.  But  chimerical  as  are  the 
hopes  which  the  hon.  and  learned  member  for  Rye  imputes  to  the 
people,  they  are  not,  I  think,  more  chimerical  than  the  fears  which 
he  has  himself  avowed.  Indeed,  those  very  Gentlemen  who  are 
constantly  telling  us  that  we  are  taking  a  leap  in  the  dark — that 
we  pay  no  attention  to  the  lessons  of  experience — that  we  are  mere 
theorists — are  themselves  the  despisers  of  experience — are  them 
selves  the  mere  theorists.  They  are  terrified  at  the  thought  of 
admitting  into  Parliament  Members  elected  by  £10  householders. 
They  have  formed  in  their  own  imaginations  a  most  frightful  idea 
of  these  Members.  My  hon.  and  learned  friend,  the  member  for 
Cockermouth,  is  certain  that  these  Members  will  take  every  oppor- 


103  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

tunity  of  promoting  the  interests  of  the  journeyman  in  opposition 
to  those  of  the  capitalist.  The  hon.  and  learned  member  for  Rye 
is  convinced  that  none  but  persons  who  have  strong  local  con 
nexions,  will  ever  be  returned  for  such  constituent  bodies.  My 
hon.  friend,  the  member  for  Thetford,  tells  us,  that  none  but  mob- 
orators,  men  who  are  willing  to  pay  the  basest  court  to  the  multi 
tude,  will  have  any  chance.  Other  speakers  have  gone  still 
further,  and  have  described  to  us  the  future  borough  Members  as 
so  many  Marats  and  Santerres — low,  fierce,  desperate  men — who 
will  turn  the  House  into  a  bear-garden,  and  who  will  try  to  turn 
the  monarchy  into  a  republic — mere  agitators,  without  honour, 
without  sense,  without  education,  without  the  feelings  or  the 
manners  of  gentlemen.  Whenever,  during  the  course  of  the 
fatiguing  discussions  by  which  we  have  been  so  long  occupied, 
there  has  been  a  cry  of  "  question,"  or  a  noise  at  the  bar,  the 
orator  who  has  been  interrupted  has  remarked,  that  such  proceed 
ings  will  be  quite  in  place  in  the  Reformed  Parliament,  but  that 
we  ought  to  remember  that  the  House  of  Commons  is  still  an 
assembly  of  Gentlemen.  This,  I  say,  is  to  set  up  mere  theory,  or 
rather  mere  prejudice,  in  opposition  to  long  and  ample  experience. 
Are  the  Gentlemen  who  talk  thus,  ignorant  that  we  have  already 
the  means  of  judging  what  kind  of  men  the  £10  householders 
will  send  up  to  Parliament  ?  Are  they  ignorant  that  there  are 
even  now  large  towns  with  very  popular  rights  of  election — with 
rights  of  election  even  more  democratic  than  those  which  will  be 
bestowed  by  the  present  Bill?  Ought  they  not,  on  their  own 
principles,  to  look  at  the  results  of  the  experiments  which  have 
already  been  made,  instead  of  predicting  frightful  calamities  at 
random  ?  How  do  the  facts  which  are  before  us  agree  with  their 
theories?  Nottingham  is  a  city  with  a  franchise  even  more  demo 
cratic  than  that  which  this  Bill  establishes.  Does  Nottingham 
send  hither  men  of  local  connexions  ?  It  returns  two  distinguished 
men — the  one  an  advocate,  the  other  a  soldier — both  unconnected 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  109 

with  the  town.  Every  man  paying  scot-and-lot  has  a  vote  at 
Leicester.  This  is  a  lower  franchise  than  the  £10  franchise.  Do 
we  find  that  the  members  for  Leicester  are  the  mere  tools  of  the 
journeymen?  I  was  at  Leicester  during  the  contest  in  1826,  and 
I  recollect  that  the  suffrages  of  the  scot-and-lot  voters  were  pretty 
equally  divided  between  two  candidates — neither  of  them  connect 
ed  with  the  place — neither  of  them  a  slave  of  the  mob — the  one 
a  Tory  Baronet  from  Derbyshire — the  other  a  most  respectable 
and  excellent  friend  of  mine,  connected  with  the  manufacturing 
interest,  and  also  an  inhabitant  of  Derbyshire.  Look  at  Norwich 
— Look  at  Northampton,  with  a  franchise  more  democratic  than 
even  the  scot-and-lot  franchise.  Northampton  formerly  returned 
Mr.  Perceval,  and  now  returns  Gentlemen  of  high  respectability — 
Gentlemen  who  have  a  great  stake  in  the  prosperity  and  tranquillity 
of  the  country.  Look  at  the  metropolitan  districts.  This  is  an  a 
fortiori  case.  Nay  it  is — the  expression,  I  fear,  is  awkward — an  a 
fortiori  case  at  two  removes.  The  £10  householders  of  the 
metropolis  are  persons  in  a  lower  station  of  life  than  the  £10 
householders  of  other  towns.  The  scot-and-lot  franchise  in  the 
metropolis  is  again  lower  than  the  £10  franchise— yet  have  West 
minster  and  Southwark  been  in  the  habit  of  sending  us  Members 
of  whom  we  have  had  reason  to  be  ashamed — of  whom  we  have 
not  had  reason  to  be  proud  ?  I  do  not  say  that  the  inhabitants  of 
Westminster  and  Southwark  have  always  expressed  their  political 
sentiments  with  proper  moderation.  That  is  not  the  question — 
the  question  is  this — what  kind  of  men  have  they  elected  ?  The 
very  principle  of  all  Representative  government  is,  that  men  who 
do  not  judge  rightly  of  public  affairs  may  be  quite  competent  to 
choose  others  who  will  judge  better.  Whom,  then,  have  West 
minster  and  Southwark  sent  us  during  the  last  fifty  years — years 
full  of  great  events — years  of  intense  popular  excitement?  Take 
any  one  of  those  nomination-boroughs,  the  patrons  of  which  have 
conscientiously  endeavoured  to  send  fit  men  into  this  House. 


110  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM, 

Compare  the  Members  for  that  borough  with  the  members  for 
Westminster  and  Southwark,  and  you  will  have  no  doubt  to  which 
the  preference  is  due.  It  is  needless  to  mention  Mr.  Fox,  Mr. 
Sheridan,  Mr.  Tierney,  Sir  Samuel  Romilly.  Yet  I  must  pause  at 
the  name  of  Sir  Samuel  Romilly.  Was  he  a  mob-orator  ?  Was 
he  a  servile  flatterer  of  the  multitude  2  Sir,  if  he  had  any  fault — 
if  there  was  any  blemish  on  that  most  serene  and  spotless  charac 
ter — that  character  which  every  public  man,  and  especially  every 
professional  man  engaged  in  politics,  ought  to  propose  to  himself 
as  a  model — it  was  this,  that  he  despised  popularity  too  much  and 
too  visibly.  The  hon.  Member  for  Thetford  told  us  that  the  hon. 
and  learned  member  for  Rye,  with  all  his  talents,  would  have  no 
chance  of  a  seat  in  the  Reformed  Parliament,  for  want  of  the  quali 
fications  which  succeed  on  the  hustings.  Did  Sir  Samuel  Romilly 
ever  appear  on  the  hustings  ?  He  never  solicited  one  vote — he 
never  shewed  himself  to  the  electors  till  he  had  been  returned  at 
the  head  of  the  poll.  Even  then — as  I  have  heard  from  one  of 
his  nearest  relatives — it  was  with  reluctance  that  he  submitted  to 
be  chaired.  He  shrank  from  being  made  a  shew.  He  loved  the 
people,  and  he  served  them;  but  Coriolanus  himself  was  not  less 
fit  to  canvass  them.  I  will  mention  one  other  name — that  of  a 
man  of  whom  I  have  only  a  childish  recollection,  but  who  must 
have  been  intimately  known  to  many  of  those  who  hear  me — Mr. 
Henry  Thornton.  He  was  a  man  eminently  upright,  honourable, 
and  religious — a  man  of  strong  understanding — a  man  of  great 
political  science — but,  in  all  respects,  the  very  reverse  of  a  mob- 
orator.  He  was  a  man  who  would  not  have  yielded  to  what  he 
considered  as  unreasonable  clamour — I  will  not  say  to  save  his 
seat — but  to  save  his  life.  Yet  he  continued  to  represent  South 
wark,  Parliament  after  Parliament,  for  many  years.  Such  has 
been  the  conduct  of  the  scot-and-lot  voters  of  the  metropolis,  and 
there  is  clearly  less  reason  to  expect  democratic  violence  from  £10 
householders  than  from  scot-and-lot  householders;  and  from  £10 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  Ill 

householders  in  the  country-towns  than  from  £10  householders  in 
London.  The  experience,  I  say,  therefore,  is  on  our  side ;  and  on 
the  side  of  our  opponents  nothing  but  mere  conjecture,  and  mere 
-  assertion.  Sir,  when  this  Bill  was  first  brought  forward,  I  sup 
ported  it  not  only  on  the  ground  of  its  intrinsic  merits,  but,  also, 
because1  I  was  convinced  that  to  reject  it  would  be  a  course  full  of 
danger.  I  believe  that  the  danger  of  that  course  is  in  no  respect 
diminished.  I  believe,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  is  increased.  We 
are  told  that  there  is  a  reaction.  The  warmth  of  the  public  feeling, 
it  seems,  has  abated.  In  this  story  both  the  sections  of  the  party 
opposed  to  Reform  are  agreed — those  who  hate  Reform,  because 
it  will  remove  abuses,  and  those  who  hate  it,  because  it  will  avert 
anarchy — those  who  wish  to  see  the  electing  body  controlled  by 
ejectments,  and  those  who  wish  to  see  it  controlled  by  constitu 
tional  squeezes.  They  must  now,  I  think,  be  undeceived.  They 
must  have  already  discovered  that  the  surest  way  to  prevent  a 
reaction  is,  to  talk  about  it,  and  that  the  enthusiasm  of  the  people 
is  at  once  rekindled  by  any  indiscreet  mention  of  their  seeming 
coolness.  This,  Sir,  is  not  the  first  reaction  which  the  sagacity  of 
the  Opposition  has  discovered  since  the  Reform  Bill  was  brought 
in.  Every  Gentleman  who  sat  in  the  late  Parliament — every 
Gentleman  who,  during  the  sitting  of  the  late  Parliament,  paid 
attention  to  political  speeches  and  publications,  must  remember 
how,  for  some  time  before  the  debate  on  General  Gascoyne's 
motion,  and  during  the  debate  on  that  motion,  and  down  to  the 
very  day  of  the  dissolution,  we  were  told  that  public  feeling  had 
cooled.  The  right  hon.  Baronet,  the  member  for  Tamworth,  told 
us  so.  All  the  literary  organs  of  the  Opposition,  from  the 
Quarterly  Review  down  to  the  Morning  Post,  told  us  so.  All  tho 
members'  of  the  Opposition  with  whom  we  conversed  in  privato 
told  us  so.  I  have  in  my  eye  a  noble  friend  of  mine,  who  assured 
me,  on  the  very  night  which  preceded  the  dissolution,  that  the 
people  had  ceased  to  be  zealous  for  thy  Ministerial  plan,  and  that 


112  ^PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

we  were  more  likely  to  lose  than  to  gain  by  the  elections.  The 
appeal  was  made  to  the  people;  and  what  was  the  result?  What 
sign  of  a  reaction  appeared  among  the  Livery  of  London  ?  What 
sign  of  a  reaction  did  the  hon.  Baronet  who  now  represents  Oke- 
hampton  find  among  the  free-holders  of  Cornwall  ?  How  was  it 
with  the  large  represented  towns  ?  Had  Liverpool  cooled  ? — or 
Bristol  ?  or  Leicester  ?  or  Coventry  ?  or  Nottingham  ?  or  Norwich  ? 
How  was  it  with  the  great  seats  of  manufacturing  industry — York 
shire,  and  Lancashire,  and  Staffordshire,  and  Warwickshire,  and 
Cheshire?  How  was  it  with  the  agricultural  districts — Northum 
berland  and  Cumberland,  Leicestershire  and  Lincolnshire,  Kent 
and  Essex,  Oxfordshire,  Hampshire,  Somersetshire,  Dorsetshire, 
Devonshire?  How  was  it  with  the  strong-holds  of  aristocratical 
influence,  Newark,  and  Stamford,  and  Hertford,  and  St.  Alban's  ? 
Never  did  any  people  display,  within  the  limits  prescribed  by  law, 
so  generous  a  fervour,  or  so  steadfast  a  determination,  as  that  very 
people  whose  apparent  languor  had  just  before  inspired  the 
enemies  of  Reform  with  a  delusive  hope.  Such  was  the  end  of  the 
reaction  of  April ;  and,  if  that  lesson  shall  not  profit  those  to  whom 
it  was  given,  such  and  yet  more  signal  will  be  the  end  of  the 
reaction  of  September.  The  two  cases  are  strictly  analogous.  In 
both  cases  the  people  were  eager  when  they  believed  the  Bill  to  be 
in  danger,  and  quiet  when  they  believed  it  to  be  in  security. 
During  the  three  or  four  weeks  which  followed  the  promulgation 
of  the  Ministerial  plan,  all  was  joy,  and  gratitude,  and  vigorous 
exertion.  Everywhere  meetings  were  held — everywhere  resolu 
tions  were  passed — from  every  quarter  were  sent  up  petitions 
to  this  House,  and  addresses  to  the  Throne — and  then  the  nation, 
having  given  vent  to  its  first  feelings  of  delight — having  clearly 
and  strongly  expressed  its  opinions — having  seen  the  principle  of 
the  Bill  adopted  by  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  second  reading 
— became  composed,  and  awaited  the  result  with  a  tranquillity 
which  the  Opposition  mistook  for  indifference.  All  at  once  the 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  113 

aspect  of  affairs  changed.     General  Gascoyne's   amendment   was 
carried — the    Bill   was    again   in    danger — exertions   were   again 
necessary.     Then  was  it  well  seen  whether  the  calmness  of  the 
public   mind  was    any   indication  of  slackness !     The  depth  and 
sincerity  of  the  prevailing  sentiments  were  proved,  not  by  mere 
talking,  but  by  actions,  by  votes,  by  sacrifices.     Intimidation  was 
defied — expenses  were  rejected — old  ties  were  broken — the  people 
struggled  manfully — they  triumphed  gloriously — they  placed  the 
Bill  in  perfect  security,  as  far  as  this  House  was  concerned,  and 
they  returned  to  their  repose.     They  are  now,  as  they  were  on  the 
eve  of  General  Gascoyne's  motion,  awaiting  the  issue  of  the  delibe 
rations  of  Parliament,  without  any  indecent  shew  of  violence,  but 
with    anxious  interest   and   immovable  resolution.     And  because 
they  are   not   exhibiting   that   noisy    and   rapturous   enthusiasm, 
which  is  in  its  own  nature   transient — because   they  are  not   as 
much    excited    as   on   the    day   when    the  plan  of  the   Govern 
ment  was  first  made  known  to  them,  or  on  the  day  when  the 
late  Parliament  was  dissolved — because  they  do  not  go  on  week 
after    week,    hallooing,    and    holding   meetings,     and    marching 
about   with   flags,  and  making   bonfires,  and   illuminating   their 
houses — we  are  again  told  that  there  is  a  reaction.     To  such  a  de 
gree  can  men  be  deceived  by  their  wishes,  in  spite  of  their  own 
recent  experience !     Sir,  there  is  no  reaction ;  and  there  will  be  no 
reaction.     All  that  has  been  said  on   this  subject   convinces  me 
only  that  those  who  are  now,  for  the  second  time,  raising  this  cry, 
know  nothing  of  the  crisis  in  which  they  are  called  on  to  act,  or  of 
the  nation  which  they  aspire  to  govern — all  their  opinions  respect 
ing  this  Bill  are  founded  on  one  great  error.     They  imagine  that 
the  public  feeling  concerning  Reform  is  a  mere  whim  which  sprang 
up  suddenly  out  of  nothing,  and  which  will  as  suddenly  vanish 
into   nothing.      They,   therefore,    confidently   expect   a   reaction. 
They  are  always  looking  out  for  a  reaction.     Everything  that  they 
see,  or  that  they  hear,  they  construe  into  a  sign  of  the  approach  of 


114  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

tliis  reaction.  They  resemble  the  man  in  Horace,  who  lies  on  the 
bank  of  the  river,  expecting  that  it  will  every  moment  pass  by"  and 
leave  him  a  clear  passage — not  knowing  the  depth  and  abundance 
of  the  fountain  which  feeds  it — not  knowing  that  it  flows,  and  will 
flow  on  for  ever.  They  have  found  out  a  hundred  ingenious 
devices  by  which  they  deceive  themselves.  Sometimes  they  tell  us 
that  the  public  feeling  about  Reform  was  caused  by  the  events 
which  took  place  at  Paris  about  fourteen  months  ago  ;  though 
every  observant  and  impartial  man  knows,  that  the  excitement 
which  the  late  French  revolution  produced  in  England,  was  not 
the  cause  but  the  effect  of  that  progress  which  liberal  opinions  had 
made  amongst  us.  Sometimes  they  tell  us,  that  we  should  not 
have  been  troubled  with  any  complaints  on  the  subject  of  the 
Representation,  if  the  House  of  Commons  had  agreed  to  a  certain 
motion,  made  in  the  Session  of  1830,  for  inquiry  into  the  causes  of 
the  public  distress.  I  remember  nothing  about  that  motion, 
except  that  it  gave  rise  to  the  dullest  debate  ever  known  ;  and  the 
country,  I  am  firmly  convinced,  cared  not  one  straw  about  it.  But 
is  it  not  strange  that  men  of  real  talents  can  deceive  themselves  so 
grossly,  as  to  think  that  any  change  in  the  Government  of  a 
foreign  nation,  or  the  rejection  of  any  single  motion,  however 
popular,  could  all  at  once  raise  up  a  great,  rich,  enlightened  nation, 
against  its  representative  institutions?  Could  suc*h  small  drops 
have  produced  an  overflowing,  if  the  vessel  had  not  already  been 
filled  to  the  very  brim  ?  These  explanations  are  incredible,  and  if 
they  were  credible,  would  be  anything  but  consolatory.  If  it 
were  really  true  that  the  English  people  had  taken  a  sudden  aver 
sion  to  a  representative  system  which  they  had  always  loved  and 
admired,  because  a  single  division  in  Parliament  had  gone  against 
their  wishes,  or  because,  in  a  foreign  country,  under  circumstances 
bearing  not  the  faintest  analogy  to  those  in  which  we  are  placed,  a 
change  of  dynasty  had  happened,  what  hope  could  we  have  for 
such  a  nation  of  madmen  ?  How  could  we  expect  that  the  present 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  115 

form  of  government,  or  any  form  of  government,  would  be  durable 
amongst  them  ? — Sir,  the  public  feeling  concerning  Reform  is  of  no 
such  recent  origin,  and  springs  from  no  such  frivolous  causes.  Its 
first  faint  commencement  may  be  traced  far— very  far — back  in 
our  history.  During  seventy  years  it  has  had  a  great  influence  on 
the  public  mind.  Through  the  first  thirty  years  of  the  reign  of 
George  III.,  it  was  gradually  increasing.  The  great  leaders  of  the 
two  parties  in  the  State  were  favourable  to  Reform.  It  was  sup 
ported  by  large  and  most  respectable  minorities  in  the  House  of 
Commons.  The  French  Revolution,  filling  the  higher  and  middle 
classes  with  an  extreme  dread  of  change,  and  the  war  calling  away 
the  public  attention  from  internal  to  external  politics,  threw  the 
question  back ;  but  the  people  never  lost  sight  of  it.  Peace  came, 
and  they  were  at  leisure  to  think  of  domestic  improvements. 
Distress  came,  and  they  suspected,  as  was  natural,  that  ,their 
distress  was  the  effect  of  unfaithful  stewardship  and  unskilful  legis 
lation.  An  opinion  favourable  to  Parliamentary  Reform  grew  up 
rapidly,  and  became  strong  among  the  middle  classes.  But  one 
tie — one  strong  tie — still  bound  those  classes  to  the  Tory  party,  I 
mean  the  Catholic  Question.  It  is  impossible  to  deny,  that  on 
that  subject  a  large  proportion — a  majority,  I  fear — of  the  middle 
class  of  Englishmen,  conscientiously  held  opinions  opposed  to 
those  which  I  have  always  entertained,  and  were  disposed  to 
sacrifice  every  other  consideration  to  what  they  considered  as 
a  religious  duty.  Thus  the  Catholic  Question  hid,  so  to  speak, 
the  question  of  Parliamentary  Reform  :  the  feeling  in  favour  of 
Parliamentary  Reform  grew,  but  it  grew  in  the  shade.  Every 
man,  I  think,  must  have  observed  the  progress  of  that  feeling  in 
his  own  social  circle.  But  few  Reform  meetings  were  held,  and 
few  petitions  in  favour  of  Reform  presented.  At  length  the 
Catholics  were  emancipated  ;  the  solitary  link  of  sympathy  which 
attached  the  people  to  the  Tories  was  broken  ;  the  cry  of  "  No 
Popery"  could  no  longer  be  opposed  to  the  cry  of  "  Reform." 


116  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

That  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  two  great  parties  in  Parliament, 
and  of  a  vast  portion  of  the  community,  had  been  the  first 
question,  suddenly  disappeared ;  and  the  question  of  Parliamen 
tary  Reform  took  the  first  place ;  then  was  put  forth  all  the 
strength  which  that  question  had  gathered  in  secret ;  then  it 
appeared  that  Reform  had  on  its  side  a  coalition  of  interests  and 
opinions  unprecedented  in  our  history — all  the  liberality  and 
intelligence  which  had  supported  the  Catholic  claims,  and  all  the 
clamour  which  had  opposed  them.  This,  I  believe,  is  the  true 
history  of  that  public  feeling  on  the  subject  of  Reform,  which  has 
been  ascribed  to  causes  quite  inadequate  to  the  production  of  such 
an  effect.  If  ever  there  was  in  the  history  of  mankind  a  national 
sentiment  which  was  the  very  opposite  of  a  caprice — with  which 
accident  had  nothing  to  do — which  was  produced  by  the  slow, 
steady,  certain  progress  of  the  human  mind,  it  is  the  feeling  of  the 
English  people  on  the  subject  of  Reform.  Accidental  circumstan 
ces  may  have  brought  that  feeling  to  maturity  in  a  particular  year, 
or  a  particular  month.  That  point  I  will  not  dispute,  for  it  is  not 
worth  disputing ;  but  those  accidental  circumstances  have  brought 
on  Reform,  only  as  the  circumstance  that,  at  a  particular  time, 
indulgences  were  offered  to  sale  in  a  particular  town  in  Saxony, 
brought  on  the  great  separation  from  the  Church  of  Rome.  In 
both  cases  the  public  mind  was  prepared  to  move  on  the  slightest 
impulse.  Thinking  thus  of  the  public  opinion  concerning  Reform 
— being  convinced  that  this  opinion  is  the  mature  product  of  time 
a«d  of  discussion — I  expect  no  reaction.  I  no  more  expect  to  see 
my  countrymen  again  content  with  the  mere  semblance  of  a  Repre 
sentation,  than  to  see  them  again  drowning  witches  or  burning 
heretics — trying  causes  by  red-hot  plough-shares,  or  offering  up 
human  sacrifices  to  wicker  idols.  I  no  more  expect  a  reaction  in 
favour  of  Gatton  and  Old  Sarum,  than  a  reaction  in  favour  of 
Thor  and  Odin.  I  should  think  such  a  reaction  almost  as  much  a 
miracle,  as  that  the  shadow  should  go  back  upon  the  dial.  Revo- 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  11 7 

lutions  produced  by  violence  are  often  followed  by  reactions ;  the 
victories  of  reason  once  gained,  are  gained  for  eternity.  In  fact,  if 
there  be  in  the  present  aspect  of  public  affairs,  any  sign  peculiarly 
full  of  evil  omen  to  the  opponents  of  Reform,  it  is  that  very  calm 
ness  of  the  public  mind  on  which  they  found  their  expectations  of 
success.  They  think  that  it  is  the  calmness  of  indifference.  It  is 
the  calmness  of  confident  hope  ;  and  in  proportion  to  the  con 
fidence  of  hope  will  be  the  bitterness  of  disappointment.  Disap 
pointment,  indeed,  I  do  not  anticipate.  That  we  are  certain  of 
success  in  this  House  is  now  acknowledged ;  and  our  opponents 
have,  in  consequence,  during  the  whole  of  our  Session,  and  parti 
cularly  during  the  present  debate,  addressed  their  arguments  and 
exhortations  rather  to  the  Lords  than  to  the  assembly  of  which 
they  are  themselves  Members.  Their  principal  argument  has 
always  been,  that  the  Bill  will  destroy  the  peerage.  The  hon.  and 
learned  member  for  Rye  has,  in  plain  terms,  called  on  the  Barons 
of  England  to  save  their  order  from  democratic  encroachments,  by 
rejecting  this  measure.  All  these  arguments — all  these  appeals 
being  interpreted,  mean  this :  "  Proclaim  to  your  countrymen  that 
you  have  no  common  interests  with  them,  no  common  sympathies 
with  them ;  that  you  can  be  powerful  only  by  their  weakness,  and 
exalted  only  by  their  degradation ;  that  the  corruptions  which 
disgust  them,  and  the  oppression  against  which  their  spirit  rises 
up,  are  indispensable  to  your  authority ;  that  the  freedom  and 
purity  of  election  are  incompatible  with  the  very  existence  of  your 
House.  Give  them  clearly  to  understand  that  your  power  rests, 
not  as  .they  have  hitherto  imagined,  on  their  rational  conviction, 
or  their  habitual  veneration,  or  your  own  great  property,  but  on  a 
system  fertile  of  political  evils,  fertile  also  of  low  iniquities  of  which 
ordinary  justice  takes  cognizance.  Bind  up,  in  inseparable  union, 
the  privileges  of  your  estate  with  the  grievances  of  ours ;  resolve 
to  stand  or  fall  with  abuses  visibly  marked  out  for  destruction ; 
tell  the  people  that  they  are  attacking  you  in  attacking  the 


118  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

three  holes  in  the  wall,  and  that  they  shall  never  get  rid  of  the 
three  holes  in  the  wall  till  they  have  got  rid  of  you — that  a 
hereditary  peerage,  and  a  representative  assembly,  can  co-exist 
only  in  name — that,  if  they  will  have  a  House  of  Peers,  they  must 
be  content  with  a  mock  House  of  Commons."  This,  I  say,  is  the 
advice,  bestowed  on  the  Lords,  by  those  who  call  themselves  the 
friends  of  aristocracy.  That  advice  so  pernicious  will  not  be  fol 
lowed,  I  am  well  assured  ;  yet  I  cannot  but  listen  to  it  with 
uneasiness.  I  cannot  but  wonder  that  it  should  proceed  from  the 
lips  of  men  who  are  constantly  lecturing  us  on  the  duty  of  consult 
ing  history  and  experience.  Have  they  ever  heard  what  effects 
counsels  like  their  own,  when  too  faithfully  followed,  have  pro 
duced  ?  Have  they  ever  visited  that  neighbouring  country,  which 
still  presents  to  the  eye,  even  of  a  passing  stranger,  the  signs  of  a 
great  dissolution  and  renovation  of  society  ?  Have  they  ever 
walked  by  those  stately  mansions,  now  sinking  into  decay,  and 
portioned  out  into  lodging-rooms,  which  line  the  silent  streets  of 
the  Fauxbourg  St.  Germain  ?  Have  they  ever  seen  the  ruins  of 
those  castles  whose  terraces  and  gardens  overhang  the  Loire? 
Have  they  ever  heard  that  from  those  magnificent  hotels,  from 
those  ancient  castles,  an  aristocracy  as  splendid,  as  brave,  as  proud, 
as  accomplished  as  ever  Europe  saw,  was  driven  forth  to  exile  and 
beggary — to  implore  the  charity  of  hostile  Governments  and 
hostile  creeds — to  cut  wood  in  the  back  settlements  of  America — 
or  to  teach  French  in  the  school-rooms  of  London  ?  And  why 
were  those  haughty  nobles  destroyed  with  that  utter  destruction  ? 
Why  were  they  scattered  over  the  face  of  the  earth,  their  titles 
abolished,  their  escutcheons  defaced,  their  parks  wasted,  their 
palaces  dismantled,  their  heritage  given  to  strangers  ?  Because 
they  had  no  sympathy  with  the  people — no  discernment  of  the 
signs  of  their  time — because,  in  the  pride  and  narrowness  of  theii* 
hearts,  they  called  those  whose  warnings  might  have  saved  them, 
theorists  and  speculators,  because  they  refused  all  concession  till 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  119 

the  time  had  arrived  when  no  concession  would  avail.  I  have  no 
apprehension  that  such  a  fate  awaits  the  nobles  of  England.  I 
draw  no  parallel  between  our  aristocracy  and  that  of  France. 
Those  who  represent  the  Lords  as  a  class  whose  power  is  incompa 
tible  with  the  just  influence  of  the  middle  orders  in  the  State, 
draw  the  parallel,  and  not  I.  They  do  all  in  their  power  to  place 
the  Lords  and  Commons  of  England  in  that  position  with  respect 
to  each  other  in  which  the  French  gentry  stood  with  respect  to  the 
Tiers  Etat.  But  I  am  convinced  that  these  advisers  will  not 
succeed.  We  see,  with  pride  and  delight,  among  the  friends  of 
the  people,  the  Talbots,  the  Cavendishes,  the  princely  house  of 
Howard.  Foremost  among  those  who  have  entitled  themselves, 
by  their  exertions  in  this  House,  to  the  lasting  gratitude  of  their 
countrymen,  we  see  the  descendants  of  Marlborough,  of  Russell, 
and  of  Derby.  I  hope,  and  firmly  believe,  that  the  Lords  will  see 
what  their  interest  and  their  honour  require.  I  hope,  and  firmly 
believe,  that  they  will  act  in  such  a  manner  as  to  entitle  them 
selves  to  the  esteem  and  affection  of  the  people.  But  if  not,  let 
not  the  enemies  of  Reform  imagine  that  their  reign  is  straightway 
to  recommence,  or  that  they  have  obtained  anything  more  than  a 
short  and  weary  respite.  We  are  bound  to  respect  the  constitu 
tional  rights  of  the  Peers  ;  but  we  are  bound  also  not  to  forget  our 
own.  We,  too,  have  our  privileges — we,  too,  are  an  estate  of  the 
realm.  A  House  of  Commons,  strong  in  the  love  and  confidence 
of  the  people — a  House  of  Commons  which  has  nothing  to  fear 
from  a  dissolution,  is  something  in  the  Government.  Some 
persons,  I  well  know,  indulge  a  hope  that  the  rejection  of  the  Bill 
will  at  once  restore  the  domination  of  that  party  which  fled  from 
power  last  November,  leaving  everything  abroad  and  everything' 
at  home  in  confusion — leaving  the  European  system,  which  it  had 
built  up  at  a  vast  cost  of  blood  and  treasure,  falling  to  pieces 
in  every  direction — leaving  the  dynasties  which  it  had  restored, 
hastening  into  exile — leaving  the  nations  which  it  had  joined 


120  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

together,  breaking  away  from  each  other — leaving  the  fund- 
holders  in  dismay — leaving  the  peasantry  in  insurrection — leaving 
the  most  fertile  counties  lighted  up  with  the  fires  of  incendiaries — 
leaving  the  capital  in  such  a  state,  that  a  royal  procession  could 
not  safely  pass  through  it.  Dark  and  terrible,  beyond  any  season 
within  my  remembrance  of  political  affairs,  was  the  day  of  their 
flight.  Far  darker  and  far  more  terrible  will  be  the  day  of  their 
return  ;  they  will  return  in  opposition  to  the  whole  British  nation, 
united  as  it  was  never  before  united  on  any  internal  question — 
united  as  firmly  as  when  the  Armada  was  sailing  up  the  channel 
— united  as  when  Bonaparte  pitched  his  camp  on  the  cliffs  of 
Boulogne.  They  will  return  pledged  to  defend  evils  which  the 
people  are  resolved  to  destroy;  they  will  return  to  a  situation  in 
which  they  can  stand  only  by  crushing  and  trampling  down 
public  opinion,  and  from  which,  if  they  fall,  they  may,  in  their  fall, 
drag  down  with  them  the  whole  frame  of  society.  Against  such 
evils,  should  such  evils  appear  to  threaten  the  country,  it  will  be 
our  privilege  and  our  duty  to  warn  our  gracious  and  beloved 
Sovereign.  It  will  be  our  privilege  and  our  duty  to  convey  the 
wishes  of  a  loyal  people  to  the  throne  of  a  patriot  king.  At  such 
a  crisis  the  proper  place  for  the  House  of  Commons  is  in  the  front 
of  the  nation ;  and  in  that  place  this  House  will  assuredly  be 
found.  Whatever  prejudice  or  weakness  may  do  elsewhere  to 
ruin  the  empire,  here,  I  trust,  will  not  be  wanting  the  wisdom,  the 
virtue,  and  the  energy  that  may  save  it. 


121 


ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  NATION.* 
OCTOBER  10,  1831. 

I  DOUBT,  Sir,  whether  any  person  who  had  merely  heard  tne 
speech  of  the  right  hon.  member  for  the  University  of  Cambridge, 
would  have  been  able  to  conjecture  what  the  question  is  which  we 
are  discussing,  and  what  the  occasion  on  which  we  are  assembled. 
For  myself  I  can  with  perfect  sincerity  declare,  that  never  in  the 
whole  course  of  my  life  did  I  feel  my  mind  oppressed  by  so  deep 
and  solemn  a  sense  of  responsibility  as  at  the  present  moment.  I 
firmly  believe  that  the  country  is  now  in  danger  of  calamities 
greater  than  ever  threatened  it,  from  domestic  misgovernment  or 
from  foreign  hostility.  The  danger  is  no  less  than  this — that  there 
may  be  a  complete  alienation  of  the  people  from  their  rulers.  To 
soothe  the  public  mind,  to  reconcile  the  people  to  the  delay — the 
short  delay — which  must  intervene  before  their  wishes  can  be 
legitimately  gratified  ;  and  in  the  mean  time,  to  avert  civil  discord, 
and  to  uphold  the  authority  of  law — these  are,  I  conceive,  the  ob 
jects  of  my  noble  friend,  the  member  for  Devonshire — these  ought, 
at  the  present  crisis,  to  be  the  objects  of  every  honest  Englishman. 
They  are  objects  which  will  assuredly  be  attained,  if  we  rise  to  this 
great  occasion — if  we  take  our  stand  in  the  place  which  the  Con 
stitution  has  assigned  to  us — if  we  employ,  with  becoming  firm 
ness  and  dignity,  the  powers  which  belong  to  us  as  trustees  of  the 
nation,  and  as  advisers  of  the  Throne.  Sir,  the  Resolution  of  my 
noble  friend  consists  of  two  parts.  He  calls  upon  us  to  declare  our 
undiminished  attachment  to  the  principles  of  the  Reform  Bill,  and 
also  our  undiminished  confidence  in  his  Majesty's  Ministers.  I  con- 


*  Hansard,  8d  Series,  vol.  viii.  p.  390-899. 
VOL.  I.  6 


122  STATE     OF     THE     NATION. 

sider  these  two  declarations  as  identical.  The  Question  of  Reform 
is,  in  my  opinion,  of  such  paramount  importance,  that,  approving 
the  principles  of  the  Ministerial  Bill,  I  must  think  the  Ministers 
who  have  brought  that  Bill  forward,  although  I  may  differ  from 
them  on  some  minor  points,  entitled  to  the  strongest  support  of 
Parliament.  The  right  hon.  Gentleman,  the  member  for  the,  Uni 
versity  of  Cambridge,  has  attempted  to  divert  the  course  of  the 
Debate  to  questions  comparatively  unimportant.  He  has  said 
much  about  the  coal-duty,  about  the  candle-duty,  about  the 
budget  of  the  present  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.  On  most  of 
the  points  to  which  he  has  referred,  it  would  be  easy  for  me,  were 
I  so  inclined,  to  defend  the  Ministers ;  and  where  I  could  not 
defend  them,  I  should  find  it  easy  to  recriminate  on  those  who 
preceded  them.  The  right  hon.  member  for  the  University  of 
Cambridge  has  taunted  the  Ministers  with  the  defeat  which  their 
measure  respecting  the  timber  trade  sustained  in  the  last  Parlia 
ment.  I  might,  perhaps,  at  a  more  convenient  season,  be  tempted 
to  inquire  whether  that  defeat  was  more  disgraceful  to  them  or  to 
their  predecessors.  I  might,  perhaps,  be  tempted  to  ask  the  right 
hon.  Gentleman,  whether,  if  he  had  not  been  treated,  while  in 
office,  with  more  fairness  than  he  has  shown  while  in  opposition, 
it  would  have  been  in  his  power  to  carry  his  best  measure — the 
Beer  Bill  ?  He  has  accused  the  Ministers  of  bringing  forward 
financial  measures,  and  then  withdrawing  those  measures.  Did 
not  he  bring  forward,  during  the  Session  of  1830,  a  plan  respecting 
the  sugar  duties  ?  and  was  not  that  plan  withdrawn  ?  But,  Sir, 
this  is  mere  trifling.  I  will  not  be  seduced  from  the  matter  in 
hand  by  the  right  hon.  Gentleman's  example.  At  the  present 
moment  I  can  see  only  one  question  in  the  State — the  Question  of 
Reform  ;  only  two  parties — the  friends  of  the  Bill  and  its  enemies. 
It  is  not  my  intention,  Sir,  again  to  discuss  the  merits  of  the  Reform 
Bill.  The  principle  of  that  Bill  received  the  approbation  of  the 
late  House  of  Commons  after  ten  nights'  discussion ;  and  the  Bill, 


STATE     OF     THE     NATION.  123 

as  it  now  stands,  after  a  long  and  most  laborious  investigation, 
passed  the  present  House  of  Commons  by  a  majority  which  was 
nearly  half  as  large  again  as  the  minority.  This  was  a  little  more 
than  a  fortnight  ago.  Nothing  has  since  occurred  to  change  0111 
opinion.  The  justice  of  the  case  is  unaltered.  The  public  enthu 
siasm  is  undiminished.  Old  Sarum  has  grown  no  larger,  Manches 
ter  has  grown  no  smaller.  In  addressing  this  House,  therefore,  I 
am  entitled  to  assume  that  the  Bill  is  in  itself  a  good  Bill.  If  so, 
ought  we  to  abandon  it  merely  because  the  Lords  have  rejected  it  ? 
We  ought  to  respect  the  lawful  privileges  of  their  House  ;  but  we 
ought  also  to  assert  our  own.  We  are  constitutionally  as  inde 
pendent  of  their  Lordships,  as  their  Lordships  are  of  us  ;  we  have 
precisely  as  gcM  a  right  to  adhere  to  our  opinion  as  they  have  to 
dissent  from  it.  In  speaking  of  their  decision,  I  will  attempt  to 
follow  that  example  of  moderation  which  was  so  judiciously  set  by 
my  noble  friend,  the  member  for  Devonshire  ;  I  will  only  say  that  I 
do  not  think  them  more  competent  to  form  a  correct  judgment  on  a 
political  question  than  we  are.  It  is  certain  that  on  all  the  most 
important  points  on  which  the  two  Houses  have  for  a  long  time  past 
differed,  the  Lords  have  at  length  come  over  to  the  opinion  of  the 
Commons.  I  am  therefore  entitled  to  say,  that  with  respect  to  all 
those  points,  the  Peers  themselves  being  judges,  the  House  of  Com 
mons  was  in  the  right  and  the  House  of  Lords  in  the  wrong.  It 
was  thus  with  respect  to  the  Slave-trade — it  was  thus  with  respect 
to  Catholic  Emancipation — it  was  thus  with  several  other  impor 
tant  Questions.  I,  therefore,  cannot  think  that  we  ought,  on  the 
present  occasion,  to  surrender  our  judgment  to  those  who  have 
acknowledged  that,  on  former  occasions  of  the  same  kind,  we  have 
judged  more  correctly  than  they  have.  Then  again,  Sir,  I  cannot 
forget  how  the  majority  and  the  minority  in  this  House  were  com 
posed  ;  I  cannot  forget  that  the  majority  contained  almost  all  those 
Gentlemen  who  are  returned  bv  large  bodies  of  electors.  It  is,  I 
believe,  no  exaggeration  to  say,  that  there  were  single  Members  of 


124  STATE     OF    THE     KATION. 

the  majority  who  had  more  constituents  than  the  whole  minority 
put  together.  I  speak  advisedly  and  seriously  ;  I  believe  that  the 
number  of  freeholders  of  Yorkshire  exceeds  that  of  all  the  electors 
who  return  the  Opposition.  I  cannot  with  propriety  comment 
here  on  any  reports  which  may  have  been  circulated  concerning 
the  majority  and  minority  in  the  House  of  Lords.  I  may,  how 
ever,  mention  these  notoriously  historical  facts — that  during  the 
last  forty  years  the  powers  of  the  executive  Government  have  been, 
almost  without  intermission,  exercised  by  a  party  opposed  to 
Reform ;  and  that  a  very  great  number  of  Peers  have  been  created, 
and  all  the  present  Bishops  raised  to  the  bench  during  those  years. 
On  this  Question,  therefore,  while  I  feel  more  than  usual  respect 
for  the  judgment  of  the  House  of  Commons,  I  feel  less  than  usual 
respect  for  the  judgment  of  the  House  of  Lords.  Our  decision  is 
the  decision  of  the  nation ;  the  decision  of  their  Lordships  can 
scarcely  be  considered  as  the  decision  even  of  that  class  from  which 
the  Peers  are  generally  selected,  and  of  which  they  may  be  con 
sidered  as  virtual  Representatives — the  great  landed  gentlemen  of 
England.  I  think,  therefore,  that  we  ought  to  adhere  to  our 
opinion  concerning  the  Reform  Bill.  The  next  question  is  this — 
ought  we  to  make  a  formal  declaration  that  we  adhere  to  our 
opinion  ?  I  think  that  we  ought  to  make  such  a  declaration  ;  and 
I  am  sure  that  we  cannot  make  it  in  more  temperate  or  more  con 
stitutional  terms  than  those  which  my  noble  friend  asks  us  to 
adopt.  I  support  the  Resolution  which  he  has  proposed  with  all 
my  heart  and  soul ;  I  support  it  as  a  friend  to  Reform ;  but  I  sup 
port  it  still  more  as  a  friend  to  law,  to  property,  to  social  order. 
No  observant  and  unprejudiced  man  can  look  forward  without 
great  alarm  to  the  effects  which  the  recent  decision  of  the  Lords 
may  possibly  produce.  I  do  not  predict — I  do  not  expect — open, 
armed  insurrection.  What  I  apprehend  is  this — that  the  people 
may  engage  in  a  silent,  but  extensive  and  persevering  war  against 
the  law.  What  I  apprehend  is,  that  England  may  exhibit  the 


STATE     OF    TflB    NATION.  125 

same  spectacle  which  Ireland  exhibited  three  years  ago — agitators 
stronger  than  the  Magistrate,  associations  stronger  than  the  law,  a 
Government  powerful  enough  to  be  hated,  and  not  powerful  enough 
to  be  feared,  a  people  bent  on  indemnifying  themselves  by  illegal 
excesses  for  the  want  of  legal  privileges.  I  fear,  that  we  may  before 
long  see  the  tribunals  defied,  the  tax-gatherer  resisted,  public  credit 
shaken,  property  insecure,  the  whole  frame  of  society  hastening  to 
dissolution.  It  is  easy  to  say — "Be  bold — be  firm — defy  intimi 
dation — let  the  law  have  its  course — the  law  is  strong  enough  to 
put  down  the  seditious."  Sir,  we  have  heard  this  blustering  before ; 
and  we  know  in  what  it  ended.  It  is  the  blustering  of  little  men 
whose  lot  has  fallen  on  a  great  crisis.  Xerxes  scourging  the  winds, 
Canute  commanding  the  waves  to  recede  from  his  footstool,  were 
but  types  of  the  folly  of  those  who  apply  the  maxims  of  the  Quar 
ter  Sessions  to  the  great  convulsions  of  society.  The  law  has  no 
eyes ;  the  law  has  no  hands  ;  the  law  is  nothing — nothing  but  a 
piece  of  paper  printed  by  the  King's  printer,  with  the  King's  arms 
at  the  top — till  public  opinion  breathes  the  breath  of  life  into  the 
dead  letter.  We  found  this  in  Ireland.  The  Catholic  Association 
bearded  the  Government.  The  Government  resolved  to  put  down 
the  Association.  An  indictment  was  brought  against  my  hon.  and 
learned  friend,  the  member  for  Kerry.  The  Grand  Jury  threw  it 
out.  Parliament  met.  The  Lords  Commissioners  came  down  with  a 
speech  recommending  the  suppression  of  the  self-constituted  legis 
lature  of  Dublin.  A  bill  was  brought  in ;  it  passed  both  Houses 
by  large  majorities ;  it  received  the  Royal  assent.  And  what  effect 
did  it  produce  ?  Exactly  as  much  as  that  old  Act  of  Queen  Eliza 
beth,  still  unrepealed,  by  which  it  is  provided  that  every  man  who, 
without  a  special  exemption,  shall  eat  meat  on  Fridays  and  Satur 
days,  shall  pay  a  fine  of  20s.  or  go  to  prison  for  a  month.  Not 
only  was  the  Association  not  destroyed ;  its  power  was  not  for  one 
day  suspended ;  it  flourished  and  waxed  strong  under  the  law  which 
had  been  made  for  the  purpose  of  annihilating  it.  The  elections 


126  STATE     OP     THE     NATION. 

of  182G — the  Clare  election  two  years  later — proved  the  folly  of 
those  who  think  that  nations  are  governed  by  wax  and  parchment 
— and,  at  length,  in  the  close  of  1828,  the  Government  had  only 
one  plain  alternative  before  it — concession  or  civil  war.  Sir,  I 
firmly  believe,  that  if  the  people  of  England  shall  lose  all  hope 
of  carrying  the  Reform  Bill  by  constitutional  means,  they  will 
forthwith  begin  to  offer  to  the  Government  the  same  kind  of  resist 
ance  which  was  offered  to  the  late  Government,  three  years  ago, 
by  the  people  of  Ireland — a  resistance  by  no  means  amounting  to 
rebellion — a  resistance  rarely  amounting  to  any  crime  defined  by 
the  law — but  a  resistance  nevertheless  which  is  quite  sufficient  to 
obstruct  the  course  of  justice,  to  disturb  the  pursuits  of  industry, 
and  to  prevent  the  accumulation  of  wealth.  And  is  not  this  a  dan 
ger  which  we  ought  to  fear  ?  And  is  not  this  a  danger  which  we  are 
bound,  by  all  means  in  our  power,  to  avert  ?  And  who  are  those 
who  taunt  us  for  yielding  to  intimidation  ?  Who  are  those  who 
affect  to  speak  with  contempt  of  associations,  and  agitators,  and 
public  meetings  ?  Even  the  very  persons  who,  scarce  two  years 
ago,  gave  up  to  associations,  and  agitators,  and  public  meetings, 
their  boasted  Protestant  Constitution,  proclaiming  all  the  time  that 
they  saw  the  evils  of  Catholic  Emancipation  as  strongly  as  ever. 
Surely — surely — the  note  of  defiance  which  is  now  so  loudly 
sounded  in  our  ears,  proceeds  with  a  peculiarly  bad  grace  from 
men  whose  highest  glory  it  is  that  they  abased  themselves  to  the 
dust  before  a  people  whom  their  policy  had  driven  to  madness — 
from  men  the  proudest  moment  of  whose  lives  was  that  in  which 
they  appeared  in  the  character  of  persecutors  scared  into  toleration. 
Do  they  mean  to  indemnify  themselves  for  the  humiliation  of  quail 
ing  before  the  people  of  Ireland  by  trampling  on  the  people  of 
England  ?  If  so,  they  deceive  themselves.  The  case  of  Ireland, 
though  a  strong  one,  was  by  no  means  so  strong  a  case  as  that 
with  which  we  have  now  to  deal.  The  Government,  in  its  strug 
gle  with  the  Catholics  of  Ireland,  had  Great  Britain  at  its  back. 


STATE     OF     THE     NATION.  127 

Whom  will  it  have  at  its  back  in  the  struggle  with  the  Reformers 
of  Great  Britain  ?  I  know  only  two  ways  in  which  societies  can 
permanently  be  governed — by  public  opinion,  and  by  the  sword. 
A  Government  having  at  its  command  the  armies,  the  fleets,  and 
the  revenues  of  Great  Britain,  might  possibly  hold  Ireland  by  the 
sword.  So  Oliver  Cromwell  held  Ireland ;  so  William  III.  held 
it ;  so  Mr.  Pitt  held  it ;  so  the  Duke  of  Wellington  might  perhaps 
have  held  it.  But  to  govern  Great  Britain  by  the  sword — so  wild 
a  thought  has  never,  I  will  venture  to  say,  occurred  to  any  public 
man  of  any  party  ;  and,  if  any  man  were  frantic  enough  to  make 
the  attempt,  he  would  find,  before  three  days  had  expired,  that 
there  is  no  better  sword  than  that  which  is  fashioned  out  of  a 
ploughshare.  But,  if  not  by  the  sword,  how  is  the  country  to  be 
governed  ?  I  understand  how  the  peace  is  kept  at  New  York.  It 
is  by  the  assent  and  support  of  the  people.  I  understand  also  how 
the  peace  is  kept  at  Milan.  It  is  by  the  bayonets  of  the  Austrian 
soldiers.  But  how  the  peace  is  to  be  kept  when  you  have  neither 
the  popular  assent  nor  the  military  force — how  the  peace  is  to  be 
kept  in  England  by  a  Government  acting  on  the  principles  of  the 
present  Opposition,  I  do  not  understand.  There  is  in  truth  a  great 
anomaly  in  the  relation  between  the  English  people  and  their 
Government.  Our  institutions  are  either  too  popular  or  not  popu 
lar  enough.  The  people  have  not  sufficient  power  in  making  the 
laws  ;  but  they  have  quite  sufficient  power  to  impede  the  execution 
of  the  laws  once  made.  The  Legislature  is  almost  entirely  aristo- 
cratical ;  the  machinery  by  which  the  decrees  of  the  Legislature 
are  carried  into  effect  is  almost  entirely  popular ;  and,  therefore,  we 
constantly  see  all  the  power  which  ought  to  execute  the  law,  em 
ployed  to  counteract  the  law.  Thus,  for  example,  with  a  criminal 
code  which  carries  its  rigour  to  the  length  of  atrocity,  we  have  a 
criminal  judicature  which  often  carries  its  lenity  to  the  length  of  per 
jury.  Our  law  of  libel  is  the  most  absurdly  severe  that  ever  existed 
— so  absurdly  severe  that,  if  it  were  carried  into  full  effect,  it  would 


128  STATE     OF    THE     NATION. 

be  much  more  oppressive  than  a  censorship.  And"  yet,  with  this 
severe  law  of  libel,  we  have  a  Press  which  practically  is  as  free  as 
the  air.  In  1819  the  Ministers  complained  of  the  alarming  increase 
of  seditious  and  blasphemous  publications.  They  proposed  a  law 
of  great  rigour  to  stop  the  growth  of  the  evil ;  and  they  obtained 
their  law.  It  was  enacted,  that  the  publisher  of  a  seditious  libel 
might,  on  a  second  conviction,  be  banished,  and  that  if  he  should 
return  from  banishment,  he  might  be  transported.  How  often  was 
this  law  put  in  force  ?  Not  once.  .  Last  year  we  repealed  it ;  but 
it  was  already  dead,  or  rather  it  was  dead  born.  It  was  obsolete 
before  le  Roi  le  veut  had  been  pronounced  over  it.  For  any  effect 
which  it  produced  it  might  as  well  have  been  in  the  Code  Napo 
leon  as  in  the  English  Statute-book.  And  why  did  the  Govern 
ment,  having  solicited  and  produced  so  sharp  and  weighty  a  wea 
pon,  straightway  hang  it  up  to  rust  ?  Was  there  less  sedition, 
were  there  fewer  libels,  after  the  passing  of  the  Act  than  before  it  ? 
Sir,  the  very  next  year  was  the  year  1820 — the  year  of  the  Bill  of 
Pains  and  Penalties — the  very  year  when  the  public  mind  was 
most  excited — the  very  year  when  the  public  Press  was  most  scur 
rilous.  "Why  then  did  not  the  Ministers  use  their  new  law  ?  Be 
cause  they  durst  not ;  because  they  could  not.  They  had  obtained 
it  with  ease  ;  for  in  obtaining  it  they  had  to  deal  with  a  subservi 
ent  Parliament.  They  could  not  execute  it ;  for  in  executing  it  they 
would  have  to  deal  with  a  refractory  people.  These  are  instances 
of  the  difficulty  of  carrying  the  law  into  effect  when  the  people  are 
inclined  to  thwart  their  rulers.  The  great  anomaly,  or,  to  speak 
more  properly,  the  great  evil  which  I  have  described,  would,  I 
believe,  be  removed  by  the  Reform  Bill.  That  Bill  would  esta 
blish  perfect  harmony  between  the  people  and  the  Legislature.  It 
would  give  a  fair  share  in  the  making  of  laws  to  those  without 
whose  co-operation  laws  are  mere  waste  paper.  Under  a  reformed 
system  we  should  not  see,  as  we  now  often  see,  the  nation  repeal 
ing  Acts  of  Parliament  as  fast  as  we  and  the  Lords  can  pass  them. 


STATE     OF    THE     NATION.  129 

As  I  believe  that  the  Reform  Bill  would  produce  this  blessed  and 
salutary  concord,  so  I  fear  that  the  rejection  of  the  Reform  Bill,  if 
that  rejection  should  be  considered  as  final,  will  aggravate  the  evil 
which  I  have  been  describing  to  an  unprecedented,  to  a  terrible 
extent.  To  all  the  laws  which  might  be  passed  for  the  collection 
of  the  revenue,  or  for  the  prevention  of  sedition,  the  people  would 
oppose  the  same  kind  of  resistance  by  means  of  which  they  have 
succeeded  in  mitigating — I  might  say  in  abrogating — the  law  of 
libel.  There  would  be  so  many  offenders,  that  the  Government 
would  scarcely  know  at  whom  to  aim  its  blow.  Every  offender 
would  have  so  many  accomplices  and  protectors,  that  the  blow 
would  almost  always  miss  the  aim.  The  veto  of  the  people — a 
veto  not  pronounced  in  set  form,  like  that  of  the  Roman  Tribunes, 
but  quite  as  effectual  as  that  of  the  Roman  Tribunes — for  the  pur 
pose  of  impeding  public  measures,  would  meet  the  Government  at 
every  turn.  The  Administration  would  be  unable  to  preserve 
order  at  home,  or  to  uphold  the  national  honour  abroad  :  and  at 
length  men  who  are  now  moderate,  who  now  think  of  revolution 
with  horror,  would  begin  to  wish  that  the  lingering  agony  of  the 
State  might  be  terminated  by  one  fierce,  sharp,  decisive  crisis  ?  Is 
there  a  way  of  escape  from  these  calamities  ?  I  believe  that  there 
is.  I  believe  that  if  we  do  our  duty — if  we  give  the  people  reason 
to  believe  that  the  accomplishment  of  their  wishes  is  only  deferred 
— if  we  declare  our  undiminished  attachment  to  the  Reform  Bill, 
and  our  resolution  to  support  no  Minister  who  will  not  support 
that  Bill,  we  shall  avert  the  fearful  disasters  which  impend  over 
the  country.  There  is  danger  that,  at  this  conjuncture,  men  of 
more  zeal  than  wisdom  may  obtain  a  fatal  influence  over  the  pub 
lic  mind.  With  these  men  will  be  joined  others,  who  have  neither 
zeal  nor  wisdom — common  barrators  in  politics — dregs  of  society 
which,  in  times  of  violent  agitation,  are  tossed  up  from  the  bottom 
to  the  top,  and  which,  in  quiet  times,  sink  again  from  the  top  to 

their  natural  place  at  the  bottom.     To  these  men  nothing  is  so  hate- 

6* 


130  STATE     OF     THE     NATION. 

ful  as  the  prospect  of  a  reconciliation  between  the  orders  of  the 
State.  A  crisis  like  that,  which  now  makes  every  honest  citizen 
sad  and  anxious,  fills  these  men  with  joy,  and  with  a  detestable 
hope.  And  how  is  it  that  such  men,  formed  by  nature  and  educa 
tion  to  be  objects  of  mere  contempt,  can  ever  inspire  terror? 
How  is  it  that  such  men,  without  talents  or  acquirements  sufficient 
for  the  management  of  a  vestry,  sometimes  become  dangerous  to 
great  empires  ?  The  secret  of  their  power  lies  in  the  indolence  or 
faithlessness  of  those  who  ought  to  take  the  lead  in  the  redress  of 
public  grievances.  The  whole  history  of  low  traders  in  sedition  is 
contained  in  that  fine  old  Hebrew  fable  which  we  have  all  read  in 
the  Book  of  Judges.  The  trees  meet  to  choose  a  king.  The  vine, 
and  the  fig-tree,  and  the  olive  tree,  decline  the  office.  Then  it  is 
that  the  sovereignty  of  the  forest  devolves  upon  the  bramble  :  then 
it  is  that  from  a  base  and  noxious  shrub  goes  forth  the  fire  which 
devours  the  cedars  of  Lebanon.  Let  us  be  instructed.  If  we  are 
afraid  of  Political  Unions,  and  Reform  Associations,  let  the  House 
of  Commons  become  the  chief  point  of  political  union ;  let  the 
House  of  Commons  be  the  great  Reform  association.  If  we  are 
afraid  that  the  people  may  attempt  to  accomplish  their  wishes  by 
unlawful  means,  let  us  give  them  a  solemn  pledge  that  we  will  use 
in  their  cause  all  our  high  and  ancient  privileges — so  often  \  ;cto- 
rious  in  old  conflicts  with  tyranny — those  privileges  which  our 
ancestors  invoked,  not  in  vain,  on  the  day  when  a  faithless  King 
filled  our  house  with  his  guards,  took  his  seat,  Sir,  on  your  chair, 
and  saw  your  predecessor  kneeling  on  the  floor  before  him.  The 
Constitution  of  England,  thank  God,  is  not  one  of  those  Constitu 
tions  which  are  past  all  repair,  and  which  must,  for  the  public  wel 
fare,  be  utterly  destroyed.  It  has  a  decayed  part ;  but  it  has  also 
a  sound  and  precious  part.  It  requires  purification ;  but  it  con 
tains  within  itself  the  means  by  which  that  purification  may  be 
effected.  We  read  that  in  old  times,  when  the  villeins  were 
driven  to  revolt  by  oppression,  when  the  castles  of  the  nobility 


STATE     OF     THE     NATION.  131 

were  burned  to  the  ground — when  the  warehouses  of  London  were 
pillaged — when  a  hundred  thousand  insurgents  appeared  in  arms 
on  Blackheath — when  a  foul  murder  perpetrated  in  their  presence 
had  raised  their  passions  to  madness — when  they  were  looking 
round  for  some  captain  to  succeed  and  avenge  him  whom  they  had 
lost — just  then,  before  Hob  Miller,  or  Tom  Carter,  or  Jack  Straw, 
could  place  himself  at  their  head,  the  King  rode  up  to  them  j,nd 
exclaimed,  " I  will  be  your  leader" — and  at  once  the  infuriated 
multitude  laid  down  their  arms,  submitted  to  his  guidance — dis 
persed  at  his  command.  Herein  let  us  imitate  him.  Our  coun 
trymen  are,  I  fear,  at  this  moment,  but  too  much  disposed  to  lend 
a  credulous  ear  to  selfish  impostors.  Let  us  say  to  them,  "  We  are 
your  leaders — we,  your  own  House  of  Commons — we,  the  consti 
tutional  interpreters  of  your  wishes — the  knights  of  forty  English 
shires,  the  citizens  and  burgesses  of  all  your  largest  towns.  Our 
lawful  power  shall  be  firmly  exerted  to  the  utmost  in  your  cause  ; 
and  our  lawful  power  is  such,  that  when  firmly  exerted  in  your  cause 
it  must  finally  prevail."  This  tone  it  is  our  interest  and  our  duty 
to  take.  The  circumstances  admit  of  no  delay.  Is  there  one 
among  us  who  is  not  looking  with  breathless  anxiety  for  the  next 
tidings  which  may  arrive  from  the  remote  parts  of  the  kingdom  3 
Even  while  I  speak  the  moments  are  passing  away — the  irrevocable 
moments  pregnant  with  the  destiny  of  a  great  people.  The  coun 
try  is  in  danger ;  it  may  be  saved ;  we  can  save  it.  This  is  the 
way — this  is  the  time.  In  our  hands  are  the  issues  of  great  good 
and  great  evil — the  issues  of  the  life  and  death  of  the  State.  May 
the  result  of  our  deliberations  be  the  repose  and  prosperity  of  that 
noble  country  which  is  entitled  to  all  our  love  ;  and  for  the  safety 
of  which  we  are  answerable  to  our  consciences,  to  the  memory  of 
future  ages,  to  the  Judge  of  all  hearts ! 


132 


ON  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.* 

DECEMBER    16,    1831. 

I  CAN  assure  my  noble  friend,  for  whom  I  entertain  sentiments  of 
respect  and  kindness,  which  no  political  difference  will,  I  trust,  ever 
disturb,  that  his  remarks  have  given  me  no  pain,  except,  indeed, 
the  pain  which  I  feel  at  being  compelled  to  say  a  few  words  about 
myself.  Those  words  shall  be  very  few.  I  know  how  unpopular 
egotism  is  in  this  House.  My  noble  friend  says,  that,  in  the  debates 
of  last  March,  I  declared  myself  opposed  to  the  ballot,  and  that  I 
have  since  recanted,  for  the  purpose  of  making  myself  popular  with 
the  inhabitants  of  Leeds.  My  noble  friend  is  altogether  mistaken. 
I  never  said  in  any  debate,  that  I  was  opposed  to  the  ballot.  The 
word  ballot  never  passed  my  lips  within  this  House.  I  observed 
strict  silence  respecting  it  on  two  accounts :  in  the  first  place, 
because  my  own  opinions  were,  till  very  lately,  undecided  ;  in  the 
second  place,  because  I  knew  that  the  agitation  of  that  question,  a 
question  of  which  the  importance  appears  to  me  to  be  greatly  over 
rated,  would  divide  those  on  whose  firm  and  cordial  union  the 
safety  of  the  empire  depends.  My  noble  friend  has  taken  this 
opportunity  of  replying  to  a  speech  which  I  made  last  October. 
The  doctrines  which  I  then  laid  down  were,  according  to  him,  most 
intemperate  and  dangerous.  Now,  Sir,  it  happens  curiously 
enough,  that  my  noble  friend  has  himself  asserted,  in  his  speech  of 
this  night,  those  very  doctrines,  in  language  so  nearly  resembling 
mine,  that  I  might  fairly  accuse  him  of  plagiarism.  I  said,  that 
laws  have  no  force  in  themselves,  and  that  unless  supported  by 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  ix.  p.  878-392. 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  133 

public  opinion,  they  are  a  mere  dead  letter.  The  noble  Lord  has 
said  exactly  the  same  thing  to-night.  "  Keep  your  old  Constitu 
tion,"  is  his  argument ;  "  for  whatever  may  be  its  defects  in  theory, 
it  has  more  of  the  public  veneration  than  your  new  constitution 
will  have  ;  and  no  laws  can  be  efficient,  unless  they  have  the  public 
veneration."  I  said,  that  statutes  are  in  themselves  only  wax  and 
parchment,  and  I  was  called  an  incendiary  by  the  Opposition.  The 
noble  Lord  has  said  to-night,  that  statutes  in  themselves  are  only 
ink  and  parchment ;  and  those  very  persons  who  reviled  me,  have 
enthusiastically  cheered  him.  It  is,  evidently,  not  from  the  prin 
ciple  which  I  laid  down,  but  from  the  application  of  the  principle 
that  they  dissent.  But,  Sir,  it  is  time  that  I  should  address  myself 
to  the  momentous  question  before  us.  I  shall  certainly  give  my 
best  support  to  this  Bill  through  all  its  stages  ;  and  in  so  doing,  I 
conceive  that  I  shall  act  in  strict  conformity  with  the  resolution  by 
which  this  House,  towards  the  close  of  the  late  Session,  declared 
its  unabated  attachment  to  the  principles  and  to  the  leading  provi 
sions  of  the  first  Reform  Bill.  All  those  principles,  all  those  lead 
ing  provisions,  I  find  in  the  present  measure.  In  the  details  there 
are,  undoubtedly,  considerable  alterations.  Most  of  the  alterations 
appear  to  me  to  be  improvements ;  and  even  those  alterations 
which  I  cannot  consider  as  being  in  themselves  improvements,  will 
yet  be  most  useful,  if  their  effect  shall  be  to  conciliate  opponents, 
and  to  facilitate  the  adjustment  of  a  question  which,  for  the  sake 
of  order,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  for  the  sake  of  trade,  ought  to  be  not 
only  satisfactorily,  but  speedily  settled.  We  have  been  told,  Sir, 
that,  if  we  pronounce  this  Bill  to  be  a  better  Bill  than  the  last,  we 
recant  all  the  doctrines  which  we  maintained  during  the  last  Ses 
sion  ;  we  sing  our  palinode ;  we  allow  that  we  have  had  a  great 
escape ;  we  allow  that  our  own  conduct  was  deserving  of  censure ; 
we  allow  that  the  party  which  was  the  minority  in  this  House,  and, 
most  unhappily  for  the  country,  the  majority  in  the  other 
House,  has  saved  the  country  from  a  great  calamity.  Sir,  even  if 


134  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

tliis  charge  were  well-founded,  there  are  those  who  should  have 
been  prevented  by  prudence,  if  not  by  magnanimity,  from  bringing 
it  forward.  I  remember  an  Opposition  which  took  a  very  different 
course.  I  remember  an  Opposition  which,  while  excluded  from 
power,  taught  all  its  doctrines  to  the  Government ;  which,  after 
labouring  long,  and  sacrificing  much,  in  order  to  effect  improve 
ments  in  various  parts  of  our  system,  saw  the  honuor  of  those 
improvements  appropriated  by  others.  But  the  members  of  that 
Opposition  had,  I  believe,  a  sincere  Hesire  to  promote  the  public 
good.  They,  therefore,  raised  no  shout  of  triumph  over  the  recan 
tations  of  their  neophytes.  They  rejoiced,  but  with  no  ungenerous 
joy,  when  their  principles  of  trade,  of  jurisprudence,  of  foreign 
policy,  of  religious  liberty,  became  the  principles  of  the  Adminis 
tration.  They  were  content  that  he  who  came  into  fellowship  with 
them  at  the  eleventh  hour  should  have  a  far  larger  share  of  the 
reward  than  those  who  had  borne  the  burthen  and  heat  of  the  day. 
In  the  year  1828,  a  single  division  in  this  House  changed  the 
whole  policy  of  the  Government  with  respect  to  the  Test  and  Cor 
poration  Acts.  My  noble  friend,  the  Paymaster  of  the  Forces,  then 
sat  where  the  right  Hon.  Baronet,  the  member  for  Tamworth,  now 
sits.  I  do  not  remember  that  when  the  right  hon.  Baronet  an 
nounced  his  change  of  "purpose,  my  noble  friend  sprang  up  to  talk 
about  palinodes,  to  magnify  the  wisdom  and  virtue  of  the  Whigs, 
and  to  sneer  at  his  new  coadjutors.  Indeed,  I  am  not  sure  that 
the  members  of  the  late  Opposition  did  not  carry  their  indulgence 
too  far — that  they  did  not  too  easily  suffer  the  fame  of  Grattan  and 
Romilly  to  be  transferred  to  less  deserving  claimants — that  they 
were  not  too  ready,  in  the  joy  with  which  they  welcomed  the  tardy 
and  convenient  repentance  of  their  converts,  to  grant  a  general 
amnesty  for  the  errors  or  the  insincerity  of  years.  If  it  were  true 
that  we  had  recanted,  this  ought  not  to  be  made  matter  of  charge 
against  us  by  men  whom  posterity  will  remember  by  nothing  but 
recantations.  But,  in  truth,  we  recant  nothing — we  have  nothing 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  135 

to  recant. — We  support  this  Bill — we  may  possibly  think  it  a  better 
Bill  than  that  which  preceded  it.  But  are  we  therefore  bound  to 
admit  that  we  were  in  the  wrong — that  the  Opposition  was  in  the 
right — that  the  House  of  Lords  has  conferred  a  great  benefit  on  the 
nation  ?  We  saw — who  did  not  see — great  defects  in  the  first  Bill  ? 
— But  did  we  see  nothing  else  ?  Is  delay  no  evil  ?  Is  prolonged 
excitement  no  evil  ?  Is  it  no  evil  that  the  heart  of  a  great  people 
should  be  made  sick  by  deferred  hope  ?  We  allow  that  many  of  the 
changes  which  have  been  made  are  improvements.  But  we  think 
that  it  would  have  been  far  better  for  the  country  to  have  had  the  last 
Bill,  with  all  its  defects,  than  the  present  Bill,  with  all  its  improve 
ments.  Second  thoughts  are  proverbially  the  best,  but  there  are 
emergencies  which  do  not  admit  of  second  thoughts.  There  proba 
bly  never  was  a  law  which  might  not  have  been  amended  by  delay. 
But  there  have  been  many  cases  in  which  there  would  have  been 
more  mischief  in  the  delay,  than  benefit  in  the  amendments.  The  first 
Bill,  however  inferior  it  may  have  been  in  its  details  to  the  present 
Bill,  was  yet  herein  far  superior  to  the  present  Bill — that  it  was  the 
first.  If  the  first  Bill  had  passed,  it  would,  I  firmly  believe,  have 
produced  a  complete  reconciliation  between  the  aristocracy  and  the 
people.  It  is  my  earnest  wish  and  prayer  that  the  present  Bill 
may  produce  this  blessed  effect ;  but  I  cannot  say  that  my  hopes  are 
so  sanguine  as  they  were  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  Session.  The 
decision  of  the  House  of  Lords  has,  I  fear,  excited  in  the  public 
mind  feelings  of  resentment  which  will  not  soon  be  allayed.  What 
then,  it  is  said,  would  you  legislate  in  haste  ?  Would  you  legislate 
in  times  of  great  excitement  concerning  matters  of  such  deep  con 
cern  ?  Yes,  Sir,  I  would :  and  if  any  bad  consequences  should 
follow  from  the  haste  and  the  excitement,  let  those  be  held  answer 
able  who,  when  there  was  no  need  of  haste,  when  there  existed  no 
excitement,  refused  to  listen  to  any  project  of  Reform — nay,  who 
made  it  an  argument  against  Reform,  that  the  public  mind  was  not 
excited.  When  few  meetings  were  held,  when  few  petitions  were 


136  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

sent  up  to  us,  these  politicians  said,  "  Would  you  alter  a  Constitu 
tion  with  which  the  people  are  perfectly  satisfied  ?"  And  now, 
when  the  kingdom  from  one  end  to  the  other  is  convulsed  by  the 
question  of  Reform,  we  hear  it  said  by  the  very  same  persons, 
"  Would  you  alt§r  the  Representative  system  in  such  agitated 
times  as  these  ?"  Half  the  logic  of  misgovernment  lies  in  this  one 
sophistical  dilemma : — If  the  people  are  turbulent,  they  are  unfit  for 
liberty  :  if  they  are  quiet,  they  do  not  want  liberty.  I  allow,  that 
hasty  legislation  is  an  evil.  I  allow  that  there  are  great  objections 
to  legislating  in  troubled  times.  But  Reformers  are  compelled  to 
legislate  fast,  because  bigots  will  not  legislate  early.  Reformers  are 
compelled  to  legislate  in  times  of  excitement,  because  bigots  will 
not  legislate  in  times  of  tranquillity.  If,  ten  years  ago — nay,  if 
only  two  years  ago,  there  had  been  at  the  head  of  affairs,  men  who 
understood  the  signs  of  the  times  and  the  temper  of  the  nation,  we 
should  not  have  been  forced  to  hurry  now.  If  we  cannot  take  our 
time,  it  is  because  we  have  to  make  up  their  lost  time.  If  they  had 
reformed  gradually,  we  might  have  reformed  gradually ;  but  we 
are  compelled  to  move  fast,  because  they  would  not  move  at  all. 
Though  I  admit,  Sir,  that  this  Bill  is  in  its  details  superior  to  the 
former  Bill,  I  must  say,  that  the  best  parts  of  this  Bill — those  parts 
for  the  sake  of  which  principally  I  support  it — those  parts  for  the 
sake  of  which  I  would  support  it,  however  imperfect  its  details 
might  be,  are  parts  which  it  has  in  common  with  the  former  Bill. 
It  destroys  nomination ;  it  admits  the  great  body  of  the  middle 
orders  to  a  share  in  the  government ;  and  it  contains  provisions 
which  will,  as  I  conceive,  greatly  diminish  the  expense  of  elections. 
Touching  the  expense  of  elections,  I  will  say  a  few  words,  because 
that  part  of  the  subject  has  not,  I  think,  received  so  much  atten 
tion  as  it  deserves.  Whenever  the  nomination  boroughs  are 
attacked,  the  opponents  of  Reform  produce  a  long  list  of  eminent 
men  who  have  sat  for  those  boroughs,  and  who,  they  tell  us,  would 
never  have  taken  any  part  in  public  affairs  but  for  those  boroughs. 


PARLIAMENTARY    REFORM.  137 

Now,  Sir,  I  suppose  no  person  will  maintain  that  a  large  constitu 
ent  body  is  likely  to  prefer  ignorant  and  incapable  men,  to  men  of 
information  and  ability?  Whatever  objections  there  may  be  to 
democratic  institutions,  it  was  never,  I  believe,  doubted  that  those 
institutions  are  favourable  to  the  development  of  talents.  We  may 
prefer  the  constitution  of  Sparta  to  that  of  Athens,  or  the  constitu 
tion  of  Venice  to  that  of  Florence,  but  no  person  will  deny  that 
Athens  produced  more  great  men  than  Sparta,  or  that  Florence 
produced  more  great  men  than  Venice.  But  to  come  nearer  home : 
the  five  largest  English  towns  which  now  have  the  right  of  return 
ing  two  Members  each  by  popular  election,  are  Westminster,  South- 
wark,  Liverpool,  Bristol,  and  Norwich.  Now  let  us  see  what 
Members  those  places  have  sent  to  Parliament.  I  will  not  speak 
of  the  living,  though  among  the  living  are  some  of  the  most  dis 
tinguished  ornaments  of  the  House.  I  will  confine  myself  to  the 
dead.  Among  many  respectable  and  useful  members  of  Parlia 
ment,  whom  these  towns  have  returned,  during  the  last  half  cen 
tury,  I  find  Mr.  Burke,  Mr.  Fox,  Mr.  Sheridan,  Mr.  Windham,  Mr. 
Tierney,  Sir  Samuel  Romilly,  Mr.  Canning,  Mr.  Huskisson.  These 
were  eight  of  the  most  illustrious  parliamentary  leaders  of  the 
generation  which  is  passing  away  from  the  world.  Mr.  Pitt  was, 
perhaps,  the  only  person  worthy  to  make  a  ninth  with  them.  It 
is,  surely,  a  remarkable  circumstance  that,  of  the  nine  most  dis 
tinguished  Members  of  the  House  of  Commons  who  have  died 
within  the  last  forty  years,  eight  should  have  been  returned  to  Par 
liament  by  the  five  largest  represented  towns.  I  am,  therefore, 
warranted  in  saying,  that  great  constituent  bodies  are  quite  as 
competent  to  discern  merit,  and  quite  as  much  disposed  to  reward 
merit,  as  the  proprietors  of  boroughs.  It  is  true  that  some  of  the 
distinguished  statesmen  whom  I  have  mentioned  would  never  have 
been  known  to  large  constituent  bodies  if  they  had  not  first  sate  for 
nomination  boroughs.  But,  why  is  this?  Simply,  because  the 
expense  of  contesting  popular  places,  under  the  present  system,  is 


138  PARLIAMENTARY    REFORM. 

ruinously  great.  A  poor  man  cannot  defray  it ;  an  untried  man 
cannot  expect  his  constituents  to  defray  it  for  him.  And  this  is 
the  way  in  which  our  Representative  system  is  defended.  Cor 
ruption  vouches  corruption.  Every  abuse  is  made  the  plea  for 
another  abuse.  We  must  have  nomination  at  Gatton,  because  we 
have  profusion  at  Liverpool.  Sir,  these  arguments  convince  me, 
not  that  no  Reform  is  required,  but  that  a  very  deep  and  searching 
Reform  is  required.  If  two  evils  serve  in  some  respects  to  coun 
terbalance  each  other,  this  is  a  reason,  not  for  keeping  both,  but 
for  getting  rid  of  both  together.  At  present  you  close  against  men 
of  talents  that  broad,  that  noble  entrance  which  belongs  to  them, 
and  which  ought  to  stand  wide  open  to  them ;  and  in  exchange 
you  open  to  them  a  bye-entrance — low  and  narrow — always 
obscure — often  filthy — through  which,  too  often,  they  can  pass 
only  by  crawling  on  their  hands  and  knees,  and  from  which  they 
too  often  emerge  sullied  with  stains  never  to  be  washed  away. 
But  take  the  most  favourable  case.  Suppose  that  the  Member 
who  sits  for  a  nomination  borough,  owes  his  seat  to  a  man  of  virtue 
and  honour,  to  a  man  whose  service  is  perfect  freedom,  to  a  man 
who  would  think  himself  degraded  by  any  proof  of  gratitude  which 
might  degrade  his  nominee.  Yet,  is  it  nothing  that  he  comes  into 
this  House  wearing  the  badge,  though  not  feeling  the  chain  of  ser 
vitude  ?  Is  it  nothing  that  he  cannot  speak  of  his  independence 
without  exciting  a  smile  ?  Is  it  nothing  that  he  is  considered,  not 
as  a  Representative,  but  as  an  adventurer?  This  is  what  your 
system  does  for  men  of  genius.  It  admits  them  to  political  power, 
not  as,  under  better  institutions,  they  would  be  admitted  to  power, 
erect — independent — unsullied — but  by  means  which  corrupt  the 
virtue  of  many,  and  in  some  degree'  diminish  the  authority  of  all. 
Could  any  system  be  devised,  better  fitted  to  pervert  the  principles 
and  break  the  spirit  of  men  formed  to  be  the  glory  of  their  country  ? 
And,  can  we  mention  no  instance  in  which  this  system  has  made 
such  men  useless,  or  worse  than  useless,  to  the  country  of  which 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  130 

their  talents  were  the  ornament,  and  might,  under  happier  circum 
stances,  have  been  the  salvation  ?  Ariel — the  beautiful  and  kindly 
Ariel,  doing  the  bidding  of  the  loathsome  and  malignant  Sycorax, 
is  but  a  faint  type  of  genius  enslaved  by  the  spells,  and  employed 
in  the  drudgery,  of  corruption — 

"  A  spirit  too  delicate 
"  To  act  those  earthy  and  abhorred  commands." 

We  cannot  do  a  greater  service  to  men  of  real  merit,  than  by 
destroying  that  system  which  has  been  called  their  refuge — which 
is  their  house  of  bondage ;  by  taking  from  them  the  patronage  of 
the  great,  and  giving  to  them  in  its  stead  the  respect  and  confi 
dence  of  the  people.  The  Bill  now  before  us  will,  I  believe,  pro 
duce  that  happy  effect.  It  facilitates  the  canvass ;  it  reduces  the 
expense  of  legal  agency ;  it  shortens  the  poll ;  above  all,  it  dis 
franchises  the  out-voters.  It  is  not  easy  to  calculate  the  precise 
extent  to  which  these  changes  will  diminish  the  cost  of  elections. 
I  have  attempted,  however,  to  obtain  some  information  on  this 
subject.  I  have  applied  to  a  gentleman  of  great  experience  in 
affairs  of  this  kind — a  gentleman  who,  at  the  three  last  general 
elections,  managed  the  finances  of  the  popular  party  in  one  of  the 
largest  boroughs  in  the  kingdom.  He  tells  me,  that  at  the  general 
election  of  1826,  when  the  borough  was  contested,  the  expenses  of 
the  popular  candidate  amounted  to  18,000^. ;  and  that  by  the  best 
estimate  which  can  now  be  made,  the  borough  may,  under  the 
reformed  system,  be  as  effectually  contested  for  one-tenth  part  of 
that  sum.  In  the  new  constituent  bodies  there  are  no  ancient 
rights  reserved.  In  those  bodies,  therefore,  the  expense  of  an  elec 
tion  will  be  still  smaller.  I  firmly  believe,  that  it  will  be  possible 
to  poll  out  Manchester  for  less  than  the  market  price  of  Old  Sarum. 
Sir,  I  have,  from  the  beginning  of  these  discussions,  supported 
reform  on  two  grounds,  first,  because  I  believe  it  to  be  in  itself  a 
good  thing — and  secondly,  because  I  think  the  dangers  of  with- 


140  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

holding  it  to  be  so  great,  that  even  if  it  were  an  evil,  it  would  be 
the  less  of  two  evils.  The  dangers  of  the  country  have  in  no  wise 
diminished.  I  believe  that  they  have  greatly  increased.  It  is,  I 
fear,  impossible  to  deny,  that  what  has  happened  with  respect  to 
almost  every  great  question  that  ever  divided  mankind  has  hap 
pened  also  with  respect  to  the  Reform  Bill.  Wherever  great  inte 
rests  are  at  stake  there  will  be  much  excitement,  and  wherever 
there  is  much  excitement  there  will  be  some  extravagance. 
The  same  great  stirring  of  the  human  mind  which  produced 
the  Reformation  produced  •  also  the  follies  and  crimes  of  the 
Anabaptists.  The  same  spirit  which  resisted  the  Ship-money, 
and  abolished  the  Star-chamber,  produced  the  Levellers  and  the 
Fifth-monarchy  men.  And  so,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  bad  men, 
availing  themselves  of  the  agitation  produced  by  the  question  of 
Reform,  have  promulgated,  and  promulgated  with  some  success, 
doctrines  incompatible  with  the  existence — I  do  not  say  of  mo 
narchy,  or  of  aristocracy — but  of  all  law,  of  all  order,  of  all  pro 
perty,  of  all  civilization,  of  all  that  makes  us  to  differ  from 
Mohawks  or  Hottentots.  I  bring  no  accusation  against  that  por 
tion  of  the  working  classes  which  has  been  imposed  upon  by  these 
doctrines.  Those  persons  are  what  their  situation  has  made  them 
— ignorant  from  want  of  leisure — irritable  from  the  sense  of  dis 
tress.  That  they  should  be  deluded  by  impudent  assertions,  and 
gross  sophisms — that,  suffering  cruel  privations,  they  should  give 
ready  credence  to  promises  of  relief — that,  never  having  inves 
tigated  the  nature  and  operation  of  government,  they  should  expect 
impossibilities  from  it,  and  should  reproach  it  for  not  performing 
impossibilities — all  this  is  perfectly  natural.  No  errors  which  they 
may  commit,  ought  ever  to  make  us  forget  that  it  is  in  all  proba 
bility  owing  solely  to  the  accident  of  our  situation  that  we  have 
not  fallen  into  errors  precisely  similar.  There  are  few  of  us  who 
do  not  know  from  experience,  that,  even  with  all  our  advantages  of 
education,  pain  and  sorrow  can  make  us  very  querulous  and  very 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  141 

unreasonable.  We  ought  not,  therefore,  to  be  surprised  that,  as  the 
Scotch  proverb  says,  "  it  should  be  ill  talking  between  a  full  man 
and  a  fasting ;"  that  the  logic  of  the  rich  man  who  vindicates  the 
rights  of  property,  should  seem  very  inconclusive  to  the  poor  man 
who  hears  his  children  cry  for  bread.  I  bring,  I  say,  no  accusation 
against  the  working  classes.  I  would  withhold  from  them  nothing 
which  it  might  be  for  their  good  to  possess.  I  see  with  pleasure  that, 
by  the  provisions  of  the  Reform  Bill,  the  most  industrious  and  res 
pectable  of  our  labourers  will  be  admitted  to  a  share  in  the  govern 
ment  of  the  State.  If  I  would  refuse  to  the  working  people  that 
larger  share  of  power  which  some  of  them  have  demanded,  I  would 
refuse  it,  because  I  am  convinced  that,  by  giving  it,  I  should  only 
increase  their  distress.  I  admit  that  the  end  of  government  is  their 
happiness.  But,  that  they  may  be  governed  for  their  happiness,  they 
must  not  be  governed  according  to  the  doctrines  which  they  have 
learned  from  their  illiterate,  incapable,  low-minded  flatterers.  But, 
Sir,  the  fact  that  such  doctrines  have  been  promulgated  among  the 
multitude  is  a  strong  argument  for  a  speedy  and  effectual  Reform. 
That  government  is  attacked  is  a  reason  for  making  the  founda 
tions  of  government  broader,  and  deeper,  and  more  solid.  That 
property  is  attacked,  is  a  reason  for  binding  together  all  proprietors 
in  the  firmest  union.  That  the  agitation  of  the  question  of  Reform 
has  enabled  worthless  demagogues  to  propagate  their  notions  with 
some  success,  is  a  reason  for  speedily  settling  the  question  in  the 
only  way  in  which  it  can  be  settled.  It  is  difficult,  Sir,  to  conceive 
any  spectacle  more  alarming  than  that  which  presents  itself  to  us, 
when  we  look  at  the  two  extreme  parties  in  this  country — a  nar 
row  oligarchy  above — an  infuriated  multitude  below, — on  the  one 
side  the  vices  engendered  by  power ;  on  the  other  side  the  vices 
engendered  by  distress  ;  the  one  party  blindly  averse  to  improve 
ment,  the  other  party  blindly  clamouring  for  destruction — the  one 
party  ascribing  to  political  abuses  the  sanctity  of  property,  the 
other  party  crying  out  against  property  as  a  political  abuse.  Both 


142  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

these  parties  are  alike  ignorant  of  their  true  interest.  God  forbid 
that  the  State  should  ever  be  at  the  mercy  of  either,  or  should  ever 
experience  the  calamities  which  must  result  from  a  collision  between 
them  !  I  anticipate  no  such  horrible-  event.  For,  between  those 
two  parties  stands  a  third  party,  infinitely  more  powerful  than  both 
the  others  put  together,  attacked  by  both,  vilified  by  both,  but  des 
tined,  I  trust,  to  save  both  from  the  fatal  effects  of  their  own  folly. 
To  that  party  I  have  never  ceased,  through  all  the  vicissitudes  of 
public  affairs,  to  look  with  confidence,  and  with  a  good  hope.  I 
speak  "  that  great  party  which  zealously  and  steadily  supported 
the  first  Reform  Bill,  and  which  will,  I  have  no  doubt,  support  the 
second  Reform  Bill  with  equal  steadiness,  and  equal  zeal.  That 
party  is  the  middle  class  of  England,  with  the  flower  of  the  aristo 
cracy  at  its  head,  and  the  flower  of  the  working  classes  bringing  up 
its  rear.  That  great  party  has  taken  its  immovable  stand  between 
the  enemies  of  all  order,  and  the  enemies  of  all  liberty.  It  will 
have  Reform  :  it  will  not  have  Revolution  :  it  will  destroy  political 
abuses — it  will  not  suffer  the  rights  of  property  to  be  assailed — it 
will  preserve,  in  spite  of  themselves,  those  who  are  assailing  it,  from 
the  right  and  from  the  left,  with  contradictory  accusations — it  will 
be  a  daysman  between  them — it  will  lay  its  hand  upon  them  both 
— it  will  not  suffer  them  to  tear  each  other  in  pieces.  While  that 
great  party  continues  unbroken,  as  it  now  is  unbroken,  I  shall  not 
relinquish  the  hope  that  this  great  contest  may  be  conducted,  by 
lawful  means,  to  a  happy  termination.  But,  of  this  I  am  assured, 
that,  by  means,  lawful  or  unlawful,  to  a  termination,  happy  or 
unhappy,  this  contest  must  speedily  come.  All  that  I  know  of  the 
history  of  past  times — all  the  observations  that  I  have  been  able  to 
make  on  the  present  state  of  the  country — have  convinced  me,  that 
the  time  has  arrived,  when  a  great  concession  must  be  made  to  the 
democracy  of  England — that  the  question,  whether  the  change  be 
in  itself  good  or  bad,  has  become  a  question  of  secondary  import 
ance — that,  good  or  bad,  the  thing  must  be  done — that  a  law  as 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  143 

•strong  as  the  laws  of  attraction  and  motion  has  decreed  it.  I  well 
know  that  history,  when  we  look  at  it  in  small  portions,  may  be 
so  construed  as  to  mean  any  thing — that  it  may  be  interpreted  in 
as  many  ways  as  a  Delphic  oracle.  "  The  French  Revolution," 
says  one  expositor,  "was  the  effect  of  concession."  "Not  so," 
cries  another,  "  the  French  Revolution  was  produced  by  the  obsti 
nacy  of  an  arbitrary  government."  "  If  the  French  nobles,"  says 
the  first,  "  had  refused  to  sit  with  the  tiers  etat,  they  would  never 
have  been  driven  from  their  country."  "  They  would  never  have 
been  driven  from  their  country,"  answers  the  other,  "  if  they  had 
agreed  to  the  reforms  proposed  by  M.  Turgot."  These  controver 
sies  can  never  be  brought  to  any  decisive  test,  or  to  any  satisfactory 
conclusion.  But,  as  I  believe  that  history,  when  we  look  at  it  in 
small  fragments,  proves  any  thing,  or  nothing,  so  I  believe  that  it 
is  full  of  useful  and  precious  instruction  when  we  contemplate  it  in 
large  portions — when  we  take  in,  at  one  view,  the  whole  life-time 
of  great  societies.  I  believe  that  it  is  possible  to  obtain  some 
insight  into  the  law  which  regulates  the  growth  of  communities, 
and  some  knowledge  of  the  effects  which  that  growth  produces. 
The  history  of  England,  in  particular,  is  the  history  of  a  govern 
ment  constantly  giving  way — sometimes  peaceably,  sometimes 
after  a  violent  struggle — but  constantly  giving  way  before  a  nation 
which  has  been  constantly  advancing.  The  forest-laws — the  law 
of  villenage — the  oppressive  power  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
— the  power,  scarcely  less  oppressive,  which,  for  some  time  after 
the  Reformation,  was  exercised  by  the  Protestant  Establishment — • 
the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown — the  censorship  of  the  Press — suc 
cessively  yielded.  The  abuses  of  the  Representative  system  are 
now  yielding  to  the  same  irresistible  force.  It  was  impossible  for 
the  Stuarts — and  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  them  if  they 
had  possessed  all  the  energy  of  Richelieu,  and  all  the  craft  of 
Mazarin, — to  govern  England  as  it  had  been  governed  by  the 
Tudors.  It  was  impossible  for  the  princes  of  die  House  of  Hanover 


144  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

to  govern  England  as  it  had  been  governed  by  the  Stuarts.  And  so 
it  is  impossible  that  England  should  be  any  longer  governed  as  it 
was  governed  under  the  four  first  princes  of  the  House  of  Hanover. 
I  say  impossible.  I  believe  that  over  the  great  changes  of  the  moral 
world  we  possess  as  little  power  as  over  the  great  changes  of  the 
physical  world.  We  can  no  more  prevent  time  from  changing  the 
distribution  of  property  and  of  intelligence — we  can  no  more  pre 
vent  property  and  intelligence  from  aspiring  to  political  power — 
than  we  can  change  the  courses  of  the  seasons  and  of  the  tides. 
In  peace  or  in  tumult — by  means  of  old  institutions,  where  those 
institutions  are  flexible — over  the  ruins  of  old  institutions,  where 
those  institutions  oppose  an  unbending  resistance,  the  great  march 
of  society  proceeds,  and  must  proceed.  The  feeble  efforts  of  indi 
viduals  to  bear  back  are  lost  and  swept  away  in  the  mighty  rush 
with  which  the  species  goes  onward.  Those  who  appear  to  lead 
the  movement  are,  in  fact,  only  whirled  along  before  it ;  those  who 
attempt  to  resist  it,  are  beaten  down  and  crushed  beneath  it.  It  is 
because  rulers  do  not  pay  sufficient  attention  to  the  stages  of  this 
great  movement — because  they  underrate  its  force — because  they 
are  ignorant  of  its  law,  that  so  many  violent  and  fearful  revolu 
tions  have  changed  the  face  of  society.  We  have  heard  it  said  a 
hundred  times  during  these  discussions — we  have  heard  it  said 
repeatedly,  in  the  course  of  this  very  debate,  that  the  people  of 
England  are  more  free  than  ever  they  were — that  the  Government 
is  more  democratic  than  ever  it  was ;  and  this  is  urged  as  an  argu 
ment  against  Reform.  I  admit  the  fact ;  but  I  deny  the  inference. 
It  is  a  principle  never  to  be  forgotten,  in  discussions  like  this,  that 
it  is  not  by  absolute,  but  by  relative  misgovernment  that  nations 
are  roused  to  madness.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  look  merely  at  the 
form  of  government.  We  must  look  also  to  the  state  of  the  public 
mind.  The  worst  tyrant  that  ever  had  his  neck  wrung  in  modern 
Europe  might  have  passed  for  a  paragon  of  clemency  in  Persia  or 
Morocco.  Our  Indian  subjects  submit  patiently  to  a  monopoly  of 


PARLIAMENTARY      REFORM.  145 

salt.  We  tried  a  stamp  duty — a  duty  so  light  as  to  be  scarcely 
perceptible — on  the  fierce  breed  of  the  old  Puritans  ;  and  we  lost 
an  empire.  The  Government  of  Louis  16th  was  certainly  a  much 
better  and  milder  government  than  that  of  Louis  14th  ;  yet  Louis 
14th  was  admired,  and  even  loved,  by  his  people.  Louis  16th 
died  on  the  scaffold.  Why  ?  Because,  though  the  government 
had  made  many  steps  in  the  career  of  improvement,  it  had  not 
advanced  so  rapidly  as  the  nation.  Look  at  our  own  history.  The 
liberties  of  the  people  were  at  least  as  much  respected  by  Charles 
1st,  as  by  Henry  8th — by  James  2nd,  as  by  Edward  6th.  But  did 
this  save  the  crown  of  James  2nd  ?  Did  this  save  the  head  of 
Charles  1st?  Every  person  who  knows  the  history  of  our  civil 
dissensions,  knows  that  all  those  arguments  which  are  now  em 
ployed  by  the  opponents  of  the  Reform  Bill,  might  have  been 
employed,  and  were  actually  employed,  by  the  unfortunate  Stuarts. 
The  reasoning  of  Charles,  and  of  all  his  apologists,  runs  thus : — 
"  What  new  grievance  does  the  nation  suffer  ?  What  has  the 
King  done  more  than  what  Henry  did — more  than  what  Elizabeth 
did  ?  Did  the  people  ever  enjoy  more  freedom  that  at  present — 
did  they  ever  enjoy  so  much  freedom  ?"  But  what  would  a  wise 
and  honest  counsellor — if  Charles  had  been  so  happy  as  to  possess 
such  a  counsellor — have  replied  to  arguments  like  these?  He 
would  have  said,  "  Sir,  I  acknowledge  that  the  people  were  never 
more  free  than  under  your  government.  I  acknowledge  that  those 
who  talk  of  restoring  the  old  Constitution  of  England  use  an  im 
proper  expression.  I  acknowledge  that  there  has  been  a  constant 
improvement  during  those  very  years,  in  which  many  persons  ima 
gine  that  there  has  been  a  constant  deterioration.  But  though 
there  has  been  no  change  in  the  government  for  the  worse,  there 
has  been  a  change  in  the  public  mind,  which  produces  exactly  the 
same  effect  which  would  be  produced  by  a  change  in  the  govern 
ment  for  the  worse.  Perhaps  this  change  in  the  public  mind  is  to 

be  regretted.     But  no  matter  ;  you  cannot  reverse  it.     You  cannot 
VOL.  i.  7 


146  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

undo  all  that  eighty  eventful  years  have  done.  You  cannot  trans 
form  the  Englishmen  of  1640  into  the  Englishmen  of  1560.  ft 
may  be  that  the  submissive  loyalty  of  our  fathers  was  preferable  to 
that  inquiring,  censuring,  resisting  spirit  which  is  now  abroad.  It 
may  be,  that  the  times  when  men  paid  their  benevolences  cheer 
fully  were  better  times  than  these,  when  a  gentleman  goes  before 
the  Exchequer  Chamber  to  resist  an  assessment  of  20s.  And  so  it 
may  be,  that  infancy  is  a  happier  time  than  manhood,  and  man 
hood  than  old  age.  But  God  has  decreed  that  old  age  shall  suc 
ceed  to  manhood,  and  manhood  to  infancy.  Even  so  have  socie 
ties  their  law  of  growth.  As  their  strength  becomes  greater — as 
their  experience  becomes  more  extensive,  you  can  no  longer  con 
fine  them  within  the  swaddling-bands,  or  lull  them  in  the  cradles, 
or  amuse  them  with  the  rattles,  or  terrify  them  with  the  bugbears 
of  their  infancy.  I  do  not  say,  that  they  are  better  or  happier  than 
they  were  ;  but  this  I  say  *, — they  are  different  from  what  they 
were :  you  cannot  again  make  them  what  they  were,  and  you 
cannot  safely  treat  them  as  if  they  continued  to  be  what  they 
were."  This  was  the  advice  which  a  wise  and  honest  Minister 
would  have  given  to  Charles  1st.  These  were  the  principles  on 
which  that  unhappy  prince  should  have  acted.  But  no.  He 
would  govern — I  do  not  say  ill — I  do  not  say  tyrannically  ;  I  say 
only  this,  he  would  govern  the  men  of  the  seventeenth  century  as 
if  they  had  been  the  men  of  the  sixteenth  century ;  and  therefore 
it  was,  that  all  his  talents  and  all  his  virtues  did  not  save  him  from 
unpopularity — from  civil  war — from  a  prison — from  a  bar — from  a 
scaffold.  These  things  are  written  for  our  instruction.  Another  great 
intellectual  revolution  has  taken  place ;  our  lot  has  been  cast  on  a 
time  analogous,  in  many  respects,  to  the  time  which  immediately 
-  preceded  the  meeting  of  the  Long  Parliament.  There  is  a  change 
in  society.  There  must  be  a  corresponding  change  in  the  govern 
ment.  We  are  not — we  cannot,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be — what 
our  fathers  were.  We  are  no  more  like  the  men  of  the  American 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  147 

war,  or  the  men  of  the  gagging  bill ;  than  the  men  who  cried 
"  privilege"  round  the  coach  of  Charles  1st  were  like  the  men  who 
changed  their  religion  once  a  year,  at  the  bidding  of  Henry  8th. 
That  there  is  such  a  change,  I  can  no  more  doubt  than  I  can  doubt 
that  we  have  more  power-looms,  more  steam-engines,  more  gas 
lights,  than  our  ancestors.  That  there  is  such  a  change,  the 
Minister  will  surely  find — if  ever  such  a  Minister  should  arise — 
who  shall  attempt  to  fit  the  yoke  of  Mr.  Pitt  to  the  necks  of  the 
Englishmen  of  the  nineteenth  century.  What  then  can  you  do  to 
bring  back  those  times  when  the  constitution  of  this  House  was  an 
object  of  veneration  to  the  people  ?  Even  as  much  as  Strafford  and 
Laud  could  do  to  bring  back  the  days  of  the  Tudors — as  much  as 
Bonner  and  Gardiner  could  do  to  bring  back  the  days  of  Hilde- 
brand — as  much  as  Villele  and  Polignac  could  do  to  bring  back 
the  days  of  Louis  14th.  You  may  make  the  change  tedious  ;  yqu 
may  make  it  violent ;  you  may — God  in  his  mercy  forbid  ! — you 
may  make  it  bloody ;  but  avert  it  you  cannot.  Agitations  of  the 
public  mind,  so  deep  and  so  long  continued  as  those  which  we  have 
witnessed,  do  not  end  in  nothing.  In  peace  or  in  convulsion  ;  by 
the  law,  or  in  spite  of  the  law ;  through  the  Parliament,  or  over 
the  Parliament,  reform  must  be  carried.  Therefore,  be  content  to 
guide  that  movement  which  you  cannot  stop.  Fling  wide  the 
gates  to  that  force  which  else  will  enter  through  the  breach.  Then 
will  it  still  be,  as  it  has  hitherto  been,  the  peculiar  glory  of  our 
Constitution  that,  though  not  exempt  from  the  decay  which  is 
wrought  by  the  vicissitudes  of  fortune,  and  the  lapse  of  time,  in  all 
the  proudest  works  of  human  power  and  wisdom,  it  yet  contains 
within  it  the  means  of  self-reparation.  Then  will  England  add  to 
her  manifold  titles  of  glory  this  the  noblest  and  the  purest  of  all — 
that  every  blessing  which  other  nations  have  been  forced  to  seek, 
and  have  too  often  sought  in  vain,  by  means  of  violent  and  bloody 
revolutions,  she  will  have  attained  by  a  peaceful  and  a  lawful 
Reform. 


143 


ON  THE  ANATOMY  BILL.* 

FEBRUARY  27,  1832. 

SIR,  I  cannot,  even  at  this  late  hour  of  the  night,  refrain  from 
saying  two  or  three  words.  Most  of  the  observations  of  the  hon. 
member  for  Prestoii  I  pass  by,  as  undeserving  of  any  answer, 
before  an  audience  like  this.  But  on  one  part  of  his  speech,  I 
must  make  a  few  remarks.  We  are,  says  he,  making  a  law  to 
benefit  the  rich,  at  the  expense  of  the  poor.  Sir,  the  fact  is  the 
direct  reverse  of  this.  This  is  a  bill  which  tends  especially  to  the 
benefit  of  the  poor.  What  are  the  evils  against  which  we  are 
attempting  to  make  provision  ?  Two  especially ;  that  is  to  say, 
the  practice  of  Burking  and  bad  surgery.  Now  to  both  these  the 
poor  alone  are  exposed.  What  man,  in  our  rank  of  life,  runs  the 
smallest  risk  of  being  Burked  ?  That  a  man  has  property,  that 
he  has  connexions,  that  he  is  likely  to  be  missed  and  sought  for, 
are  circumstances  which  secure  him  against  the  Burker.  It  is 
curious  to  observe  the  difference  between  murders  of  this  kind  and 
other  murders.  An  ordinary  murderer  hides  the  body,  and  dis 
poses  of  the  property.  Bishop  and  Williams  dig  holes  and  bury 
the  property,  and  expose  the  body  to  sale.  The  more  wretched, 
the  more  lonely,  any  human  being  may  be,  the  more  desirable 
prey  is  he  to  these  wretches.  It  is  the  man,  the  mere  naked  man 
that  they  pursue.  Again,  as  to  bad  surgery  ;  this  is,  of  all  evils, 
the  evil  by  which  the  rich  suffer  least,  and  the  poor  most.  If  we 
could  do  all  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  member  for  Preston  ought 
to  be  done, — if  we  could  prevent  disinterment, — if  we  could 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  x.  1832,  p.  842-3. 


ANATOMY     BILL.  149 

prevent  dissection, — if  we  could  destroy  the  English  school  of 
anatomy, — if  we  could  force  every  student  of  the  medical  science 
to  go  to  the  expense  of  a  foreign  education,  on  whom  would  the 
bad  consequences  fall  2  On  the  rich  ?  Not  at  all.  As  long  as 
there  is  in  France,  in  Italy,  in  Germany,  a  single  surgeon  of  eminent 
skill,  a  single  surgeon  who  is,  to  use  the  phrase  of  the  member  for 
Preston,  addicted  to  dissection,  that  surgeon  will  be  in  attendance 
whenever  an  English  nobleman  is  about  to  undergo  a  critical 
operation.  The  higher  orders  in  England  will  always  be  able  to 
procure  the  best  medical  assistance.  Who  suffers  by  the  bad  state 
of  the  Russian  school  of  surgery  ?  The  Emperor  Nicholas  ? — By 
no  means.  But  the  poor  dispersed  over  the  country.  If  the  edu 
cation  of  a  surgeon  should  become  very  expensive,  if  the  fees  of 
surgeons  should  rise,  if  the  supply  of  regular  surgeons  should 
diminish,  the  sufferers  would  be,  not  the  rich,  but  the  poor  in  our 
country  villages,  who  would  again  be  left  to  mountebanks,  and 
barbers,  and  old  women  ;  to  charms  and  quack  medicines.  The 
hon.  Gentleman  talks  of  sacrificing  the  interests  of  humanity  to 
the  interests  of  science,  as  if  this  were  a  question  about  the 
squaring  of  the  circle,  or  the  transit  of  Venus.  This  is  not  a  mere 
question  of  science — it  is  not  the  unprofitable  exercise  of  an  inge 
nious  mind — it  is  a  question  of  care  and  pain.  It  is  a  question  of 
life  and  death.  Does  the  hon.  Gentleman  know  from  what  cruel 
sufferings  the  improvement  of  surgical  science  has  rescued  our 
species  ?  I  will  tell  him  one  story,  the  first  that  comes  into  my 
head.  He  may  have  heard  of  Leopold,  Duke  of  Austria,  the 
same  who  imprisoned  our  Richard  Coeur-de-Lion.  Leopold's  horse 
fell  under  him,  and  crushed  his  leg.  The  surgeons  said  that  the 
limb  must  be  amputated ;  but  none  of  them  knew  how  to  ampu 
tate  it.  Leopold,  in  his  agony,  laid  a  hatchet  on  his  thigh,  and 
ordered  his  servant  to  strike  with  a  mallet.  The  leg  was  cut  off, 
and  he  died  of  the  gush  of  blood.  Such  was  the  end  of  that 
powerful  prince.  Why.  there  is  not  now  a  bricklayer  who  falls 


150  ANATOMY     BILL. 

from  a  ladder  in  England,  who  cannot  obtain  surgical  assistance, 
infinitely  superior  to  that  which  the  sovereign  of  Austria  could 
command  in  the  twelfth  century.  I  think  this  a  bill  which  tends  to 
the  good  of  the  people,  and  which  tends  especially  to  the  good  of 
the  poor.  Therefore  I  support  it.  If  it  is  unpopular,  I  am  sorry 
for  it.  But  I  shall  cheerfully  take  my  share  of  its  unpopularity. 
For  such,  I  am  convinced,  ought  to  be  the  conduct  of  one  whose 
object  it  is,  not  to  flatter  the  people,  but  to  serve  them. 


151 


ON  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.* 

FEBRUARY  28,   1832. 

The  Bill  for  England,  Committee,  17th  Day. 

HE  felt  unwilling  to  occupy  the  time  of  the  House  upon  this  sub 
ject,  after  the  observations  which  he  had  thought  it  his  duty  to 
make  in  the  course  of  the  last  Session.  But  the  extreme  solicitude 
he  felt  on  account  of  the  importance  of  the  question,  and  of  the 
peculiar  circumstances  under  which  they  were  called  on  to  discuss 
it,  compelled  him  to  make  a  few  observations  on  the  subject.  In 
that,  as  in  every  other  place,  the  first  grand  object  in  the  discus 
sion  of  these  questions  was,  to  clear  the  ground,  and  settle  upon 
whom  lay  the  burthen  of  proof.  It  was  his  opinion,  that  the 
burden  of  proof  in  this  instance  lay  upon  the  Opposition.  He 
considered  that  he  was  speaking  to  a  House  of  Reformers — there 
might  be  one  or  two  exceptions  ;  but  the  great  body  on  that  and 
on  the  other  side  of  the  House  had,  he  believed,  agreed  that  some 
change  in  the  Representation  must  take  place.  He  did  not  assert 
that  every  individual  in  that  House  entertained  that  opinion  ;  but 
he  could  not  avoid  taking  it  for  granted,  that  the  great  majority 
of  the  Opposition  did ;  for  he  was  warranted  in  saying,  that,  in  a 
great  majority  of  the  speeches  they  had  delivered,  they  had 
admitted  the  necessity  of  some  change.  If  he  did  not  entertain 
the  opinion  he  now  expressed  as  to  their  sentiments,  he  must  put 
aside  all  the  addresses  sent  up  from  the  country  by  the  noblemen 
and  gentlemen  who,  in  their  different  counties,  had  opposed  this 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  x.  1832,  p.  926-933. 


152  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

measure  of  Reform,  but  all  of  whom  had  said,  that  some  change 
was  necessary — that  some  Reform  must  take  place — and  that 
some  large  bodies  of  people  must  have  representatives  given  to 
them.  If  the  fact  was  as  he  had  stated,  they  on  the  side  of  the 
House  on  which  he  sat  proposed  that,  as  part  of  the  large  commu 
nities  entitled  to  Representation,  the  metropolitan  districts  should 
be  represented.  If  enfranchisement  ought  to  be  part  of  the  Re 
form  that  the  times  required,  and  that  Gentlemen  opposite  admit 
ted  to  be  necessary,  it  was  for  those  Gentlemen  to  shew  why  the 
places  now  proposed  should  not  partake  of  the  advantages  of 

JT  A  .L  A  O 

enfranchisement.  He  was  aware  that  they  had  no  precise  standard 
by  which  to  determine  what  were  the  towns  that  should  receive 
Representatives.  He  should  use  the  word  importance,  to  con 
stitute  that  standard  ;  for  though  it  was  possible  to  raise  quibbles 
upon  it,  none  could  possibly  deny,  that,  if  they  were  compelled  to 
bestow  representation  on  one  of  two  places,  they  would  rather 
bestow  it  upon  a  town  like  Manchester  than  upon  a  petty  village, 
and  their  choice  would  be  guided  by  the  greater  importance  of  the 
place  selected.  If  they  took  the  amount  of  population  as  the 
standard  of  importance — if  they  adopted  that  of  the  number  of 
IOL  houses — if  they  took  the  amount  of  the  assessed  taxes — if 
they  took  the  wealth — if  they  adopted  intelligence  as  their  crite 
rion — indeed,  estimate  it  as  they  might,  let  them  take  any  combi 
nation  of  arithmetical  figures  that  they  pleased — let  them  multiply 
or  divide — let  them  subtract  or  add — let  them  adopt  the  course 
pointed  out  by  Lieutenant  Drummond,  or  that  of  the  hon.  Member 
who  proposed  to  decide  the  question  by  the  square  root  of  popula 
tion  and  taxes — in  short,  let  them  take  whatever  course  of  arith 
metic  they  pleased,  there  was  none  from  which  these  metropolitan 
districts  would  not  come  marked  with  the  proofs  of  a  most  un 
doubted  importance.  If  they  took  population,  wealth,  and  intel 
ligence,  as  the  standard  by  which  to  measure  their  decision,  fifty 
would  be  a  more  proper  number  of  Representatives  than  eight  to 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  153 

give  to  these  districts.  That  was  a  fact  recognised  by  the  hon. 
and  learned  Gentleman  himself.  It  was  admitted  by  all  hon. 
Members  that,  in  all  these  elements  of  fitness  for  the  formation  of 
a  constituency,  the  metropolitan  districts  stood  higher  than  any 
other.  If  so,  it  was  for  those  who  wished  to  withhold  the  enfran 
chisement  to  give  the  reason  why  it  should  be  withheld.  The 
noble  Lord  had  offered  some  reasons  for  refusing  the  Members 
to  these  districts,  which  reasons  the  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman 
had  most  elaborately  exerted  himself  to  upset.  What,  said  the 
hon.  and  learned  Gentleman,  will  you  let  loose  150,000  voters — 
will  you  give  the  rights  of  franchise  to  such  an  immense  body  ? 
Yes,  said  the  noble  Lord,  I  will  add  Marylebone  to  Westminster — • 
I  will  give  the  Tower  Hamlets  and  Finsbury  to  the  City,  and 
Lambeth  to  South wark.  Yes,  they  who  had  talked  so  much  of 
swamping  constituencies — who  had  exclaimed  so  loudly  against 
such  a  course — who  affected  so  much  dread  of  a  large  consti 
tuency — actually  proposed  to  swamp  Westminster  with  Maryle 
bone  ;  to  swamp  the  City  with  Finsbury  and  the  Tower  Hamlets  ; 
and  to  swamp  Southwark  with  Lambeth ;  and  that,  too,  although 
at  the  same  time  they  described  the  present  constituencies  of  each 
of  these  places  as  sufficiently  numerous.  What,  were  they  not 
afraid  of  the  unhealthful  state  of  the  metropolis — of  the  agitation 
excited  by  elections  among  such  very  large  constituencies  ?  No, 
they  seemed  to  be  afraid  of  none  «of  these  things  when  they  made 
the  proposal.  Of  what,  then,  were  they  afraid  ?  Of 'eight  Mem 
bers.  Simply  of  eight  Members — that  must  be  the  cause  of  their 
fear.  But  the  fear  was  still  more  remarkable,  for  the  noble  Lord 
proposed  to  add  two  Members  to  Middlesex ;  so  that  it  might  be 
said,  that  the  noble  Lord  feared  six  members — a  number  not  so 
great  as  was  returned  by  some  individual  Peers  under  the  present 
system  to  that  House.  The  only  argument  against  giving  Repre 
sentatives  to  the  metropolitan  districts  was,  that  the  Members 

would  be  called  to  a  very  strict  account  by  their  constituents ;  that 

7* 


154  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

they  would  not  speak  their  own  sense,  but  merely  the  fluctuating 
sense  of  those  who  sent  them  as  their  Representatives.  But  that 
argument  a-pplied  as  strongly  to  the  instances  of  Members  returned 
by  individuals.  He  did  not  understand  the  grounds  on  which 
those  who  represented  the  submission  of  Members  to  be  called  to 
account  by  a  numerous  constituency  as  a  disgrace,  while  they 
thought  it  a  point  of  honour  to  submit  to  the  same  strictness  of 
account  to  an  individual.  He  did  not  understand  that  spirit  of 
honour  that  could  lick  the  heels  of  an  oligarchy,  while  it  spurned 
at  the  wishes  of  the  people.  He  did  not  understand  that  point  of 
honour  which  made  a  man  boast  that  he  had  gone  out  of  his  seat 
because  he  had  voted  in  a  particular  manner  against  the  wish  of 
one  man,  his  patron,  while  he  taunted  another  Member  for  quitting 
his  seat  solely  because  he  had  offended  12,000  persons.  But  sup 
posing  this  strictness  of  calling  to  account  to  be  an  evil,  was  that 
evil  confined  to  the  metropolitan  districts  ?  Certainly  not.  During 
the  discussion  on  the  Catholic  Claims  there  were  many  Gentlemen 
who  disguised  their  opinion — who  compromised  their  real  wishes 
and  feelings — for  fear  of  offending  their  constituents.  He  did  not 
understand  on  what  ground  they  were  more  afraid  on  the  subject 
of  the  influence  to  be  exercised  by  the  constituency  in  the  metro 
politan  districts  than  in  other  large  towns.  He  knew  an  instance 
of  an  individual  who  declared  that  there  were  many  Gentlemen 
who  said  on  that  occasion,  that  they  could  not  vote  for  the  Catholic 
Question,  if  they  wished  to  retain  their  seats.  That,  however,  was 
not  the  evil  of  popular  Representation  alone.  It  was  the  fault  of 
all  Representations,  individual  and  numerous.  To  suppose  other 
wise  would  be  to  manifest  an  ignorance  of  human  nature.  But 
the  great  argument  really  w^  ,  in  plain  words,  a  dread  of  the  pre 
ponderance  of  the  people.  There  might  be  some  evil  in  that ;  but 
if  it  was  an  evil,  it  was  one  which  this  Bill  would  not  increase. 
It  had  always  been  found  that  a  great  city  exercised  an  influence 
over  the  empire  of  which  it  formed  a  part,  but  that  influence  was 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  155 

not  connected  with  the  number  of  Representatives  it  possessed.  It 
might,  indeed,  exist  without  the  city  having  any  Representative  at 
all,  and  was  nowhere  so  great  as  under  arbitrary  and  despotic 
Governments.  It  was  unnecessary  to  remind  the  House  that  at 
Rome  the  despotic  emperors,  while  they  exercised  the  most  un 
bounded,  and  the  most  brutal  tyranny  over  the  people,  yet  thought 
it  necessary  to  conciliate  the  populace  with  expensive  shows.  At 
Madrid,  under  their  tyrannical  government,  the  mob  often  com 
pelled  their  despot  king  to  promise  the  dismissal  of  an  obnoxious 
Minister ;  they  had  done  so  in  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  and 
again  in  that  of  Charles  III.  They  had  risen  in  the  streets ;  sur 
rounded  the  palace  of  the  king ;  compelled  him  to  appear  on  the 
balcony,  and  to  promise  them  all  they  demanded.  That  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  share  which  the  people  of  Madrid  had  in 
the  Cortes.  If  there  was  any  country  in  which  the  people  exer 
cised  a  morbid  influence  over  the  government,  it  was  in  Turkey, 
in  despotic  Turkey — even  there,  where  reigned  the  most  abso 
lute,  the  most  unmitigated  despotism,  the  most  iron-handed 
tyranny,  the  Sultan  was  often  forced  to  sacrifice  his  ministers,  and 
obey  the  will  of  the  people  living  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the 
Seraglio.  That  was  an  influence  which  nothing  could  take  away 
but  an  earthquake  like  that  of  Lisbon.  That  species  of  influence 
would  always  be  possessed  by  London,  and  nothing  would  remove 
it  but  such  a  fierce  and  dreadful  calamity,  as  that  which  in  a  great 
degree  overwhelmed  this  great  city  in  1666.  But  did  the  noble 
Lord  propose  to  take  away  that  influence  ?  The  noble  Lord  knew 
it  was  impossible.  From  all  time  the  City  of  London  had  been 
of  great  importance  in  the  struggles  of  party  and  of  the  people ; 
and  it  had  generally,  by  the  force  of  its  power,  decided  those 
struggles ;  but  it  would  be  absurd  to  think  of  making  a  law  to 
regulate  a  power  which  was  only  to  be  dreaded  when  all  law  was 
at  an  end.  As  long  as  the  rule  of  law  continued,  the  power  of 
London  would  only  consist  of  the  number  of  votes  it  had  in  that 


156  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

House.  When  law  was  at  an  end,  the  power  of  London  would 
consist  of  1,500,000  persons,  and  of  that  power  there  was  nothing 
to  deprive  it.  As  long  as  regular  Government  existed,  the  metro 
polis  was,  in  fact,  weak  ;  but  when  the  course  of  regular  Govern 
ment  was  disturbed,  the  metropolis  possessed,  and  could  employ,  a 
vast  and  overwhelming  force.  But  the  noble  Lord  proposed  that 
which  would,  in  fact,  increase  the  danger,  for  he  would  refuse  to 
the  metropolis  all  votes  whatever.  Without  recurring  to  the 
speeches  of  any  democratic  orator,  he  could  show  the  danger  of 
this  refusal,  by  proving  the  advantage  of  the  concession.  He 
would  refer  to  the  speech  which  Mr.  Burke  delivered  on  the  ques 
tion  of  conciliation  with  America.  In  that  speech  it  was  said  by 
Mr.  Burke,  after  referring  to  the  dissensions  that  had  existed  in 
Wales,  "  A  complete  and  not  ill-proportioned  Representation  by 
counties  and  boroughs  was  bestowed  upon  Wales  by  Act  of 
Parliament.  From  that  moment,  as  by  a  charm,  the  tumults  sub 
sided,  obedience  was  restored,  peace,  order,  and  civilization  fol 
lowed  in  the  train  of  liberty — when  the  day-star  of  the  English 
Constitution  had  arisen  in  their  hearts,  all  was  harmony  within 
and  without — 

"  Simul  alba  nautis   • 
Stella  refulsit, 

Defluit  saxis  agitatus  humor : 
Concidunt  venti,  fugiuntque  nubes : 
Et  minax  (qu6d  sic  voluere)  pontd 
Und'a  recumbit." 

He  had  mentioned  Madrid  and  Constantinople  ;  but  London  dif 
fered  from  those  cities  in  this  respect,  that  the  population  of  London 
had  never  assembled  round  the  palace  of  the  Sovereign,  demanding 
the  punishment  of  an  obnoxious  Minister.  He  repeated  it — the 
population  of  London  had  never  done  this,  at  least  in  his  memory. 
He  had,  indeed,  seen  the  people  assemble  round  their  Sovereign, 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  157 

with  the  warmest  expressions  of  a  sincere  attachment.  The  people 
of  London  were  orderly ;  but  exactly  as  he  believed  them  to  be 
more  orderly  than  the  people  of  Madrid  or  Constantinople,  because 
they  had  better  modes  of  expressing  their  opinions,  so  did  he 
believe,  that  the  people  of  represented  London  would  be  more 
quiet  than  the  people  of  unrepresented  London.  The  cause  of  all 
commotions  in  States  had  been,  that  the  natural  and  artificial 
powers  did  not  correspond  with  each  other.  That  had  been  the 
case  with  the  governments  of  Greece  and  Italy.  It  was  no  new 
principle — it  had  been  laid  down  by  Aristotle — it  had  been  main 
tained  and  exemplified  by  Machiavel.  Its  effects  in  the  earlier 
ages  were  well  known.  In  the  last  century  it  had  produced  the 
French  Revolution  ;  in  this  the  cry  for  Reform.  The  danger  was 
in  struggling  to  resist  that  alteration  which  had  been  rendered 
necessary  by  the  altered  circumstances  of  the  times.  That  danger 
this  Bill  was  intended  to  rectify.  It  gave  to  the  people  a  place  in 
the  government  like  that  which  they  must  have  in  society;  and 
was  it  not  a  most  monstrous  argument  to  say,  that,  because  a 
great  natural  power  existed,  it  should  have  no  political  power 
associated  with  it  ?  Was  it  for  them  to  create  dissension  where 
none  had  yet  appeared  ?  This  Bill  was  meant  to  be  a  great  deed 
of  reconciliation  ;  would  they  deprive  it  of  that  character  ;  would 
they  make  it  produce  heart-burnings  instead  of  peace,  dissensions 
instead  of  reconciliation  and  harmony  of  feeling?  It  was  the 
object  of  the  Government  to  frame  this  measure  so  as  to  be  final — 
as  final  as  any  human  measure  could  be.  Would  they  be  the  first  to 
deprive  it  of  that  character — would  they  make  it  short-lived  ? 
Was  it  to  be  the  first  business  of  the  Reformed  House  of  Com 
mons  to  discuss  a  new  measure  of  Reform  ?  The  hon.  Gentlemen 
opposite  had  frequently  predicted  that  this  settlement  of  the 
Reform  Question  would  not  be  permanent ;  and  they  were  taking 
the  greatest  pains  to  accomplish  their  prediction.  He  agreed  with 
them  in  their  dislike  and  dread  of  change,  as  change,  and  he  was 


158  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

prepared  to  bear  with  many  anomalies,  many  practical  grievances, 
rather  than  venture  heedlessly  on  political  alterations ;  but  when  a 
change  had  become  absolutely  necessary,  as  undoubtedly  it  had  at 
present,  then  his  opinion  was  that  it  should  be  full  and  effectual. 
It  was  dangerous  to  change  often.  The  Constitution  was  more 
injured  by  being  frequently  tampered  with  than  by  a  great  revolu 
tion.  If  no  Members  were  now  given  to  the  metropolitan  districts, 
they  would  be  demanded  with  clamour,  and  by  that  very  people 
of  whom  the  noble  Marquis  was  so  much  afraid,  in  the  first 
Session  of  the  next  Parliament.  If  Gentlemen  believed,  as  they 
professed  to  believe,  that  the  new  Parliament  would  be  more 
democratically  inclined  than  the  present,  they  must  expect  that  it 
would  not  resist  the  demand,  and  that  the  alteration  would  be 
larger.  The  question,  then,  was,  whether  they  should  pass  the 
Keform  Bill,  not  without  anomalies,  for  no  measure  could  be 
without  them,  but  in  such  a  state  as  was  sure  to  engender  dislike 
and  discontent  in  a  large  and  influential  body  of  voters.  Ought 
they  to  frame  it  so  as  to  outrage  the  feelings  of  those  it  professed 
to  conciliate,  and  continue  the  abuses  it  proposed  to  destroy  ?  He 
would  support  the  proposition  to  give  Members  to  the  metropolitan 
districts,  not  only  because  Members  ought  to  be  given,  but  because 
the  majority  of  that  House  were  now  on  their  trial  before  the 
country,  and  it  was  for  them  now  to  prove  whether  they  were 
sincere  or  not ;  whether  the  pledge  they  had  given  in  last 
October — to  support  the  principle  and  the  leading  details  of  the 
Bill — was  now  to  be  redeemed.  The  question  was  not  only 
whether  the  metropolitan  districts  should  have  eight  Members  or 
none,  but  whether  they  would  carry  the  Bill  or  compromise  it ; 
compromise  that  to  which  they  had  pledged  themselves,  in  order 
to  gratify  those,  who,  finding  it  impossible  to  throw  out  the  Bill, 
resolved  to  fritter  it  away.  He  called  on  them,  for  God's  sake,  to 
be  firm.  The  hon.  Gentlemen  who  sat  in  that  House  for  Ireland, 
would  not  suffer  those  who,  in  the  last  Parliament,  had  deprived 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  169 

them  of  five  Members,  to  flatter  them  into  the  belief  that,  by 
voting  against  this  proposition,  they  would  secure  even  a  single 
additional  Member  for  their  country.  But  all  the  hon.  Gentlemen 
who  heard  him,  whatever  district  of  the  United  Kingdom  they 
were  connected  with,  on  this  occasion  owed  a  solemn  duty  to  their 
country  ;  as  they  performed  that  duty,  the  confidence  which  they 
had  justly  earned  would  be  confirmed  or  lost ;  and,  on  this  occa 
sion,  it  was  perfectly  and  completely  true,  that  he  who  was  not 
with  them,  was  against  them. 


160 


ON  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM.* 

MARCH     19,    1832. 

On  the  Bill  for  England — third  Reading. 

MB.  MACAULAY  said,  it  was  unnecessary  for  him  to  declare  that  he 
fully  concurred  in  the  feeling  which  the  House  had  expressed  at 
the  speech  of  the  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman  [Mr.  Pemberton] 
who  had  just  sat  down,  and  if  that  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman 
thought  it  necessary  to  apologize  to  the  House,  on  account  of  hav 
ing  once  before  delivered  a  speech  which,  like  that  just  concluded, 
met  with  the  most  enthusiastic  reception,  how  much  more  neces 
sary  was  it  for  him  to  offer  some  apology  for  again  trespassing  on 
the  time  of  the  House.  He  could  not,  however,  suffer  this  occasion 
— the  third  reading  of  the  Reform  Bill — to  pass  over  without 
coming  forward  once  more  to  vindicate  the  principles  he  professed. 
The  noble  Lord  who  opened  the  debate,  in  a  speech  distinguished, 
like  everything  which  fell  from  him,  by  the  greatest  ingenuity  and 
ability,  told  the  house  that  the  first  great  evil  of  this  bill  was,  that 
it  pronounced  an  absolute  condemnation  upon  our  ancestors ;  and 
he  asked  whether  we  were  prepared  utterly  to  condemn  all  which 
they  had  done.  He  certainly  was  not  prepared  to  take  any  such 
course ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  he  must  say,  that  the  men  of  the 
present  day  were  better  enabled  to  decide  political  questions  than 
their  ancestors.  Government  was  not  a  matter  of  d  priori  reason 
ing,  and  must  always  be  determined  by  experiment,  and  it  was  the 
essence  of  every  experimental  science  that  it  should  be  progressive. 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  xi.  1832,  p.  450-463. 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  161 

Moreover,  it  was  essential  that  every  experiment  concerning 
Government  should  be  founded  on  the  special  and  peculiar  circum 
stances  which  called  for  it.  Arguments,  therefore,  that  were  unan 
swerable  a  thousand  years  ago,  would  be  very  defective  if  applied  to 
the  present  day  ;  and  he  would  venture  to  say,  that  there  was  no 
Gentleman  in  this  House  who  would  not  be  ashamed  to  be  guided 
by  the  wisdom  of  our  ancestors,  if  he  were  about  to  make  an  ex 
periment  on  any  other  subject  than  that  of  Government.  Take 
chemistry,  botany,  surgery,  or  any  science,  for  example,  in  which 
ingenuity  and  invention  were  necessary,  and  there  was  no  man  in 
that  House  who  would  reject  improvements  in  those  sciences 
because  they  did  not  comport  with  the  wisdom  of  our  forefathers, 
or  who  would  say  that  the  present  age,  instead  of  being  vastly 
superior  to  those  times,  was,  in  fact,  very  inferior.  And  why  was 
that  ?  Because  these  sciences  depended  on  observation  and  experi 
ment.  Every  age  had  grelter  opportunity  for  experiment  than 
that  which  preceded  it ;  and  every  age  must,  therefore,  be  con 
sidered  as  wiser  than  its  predecessor.  Like  the  other  sciences  he 
had  mentioned,  the  science  of  Government  was  essentially  an 
experimental  science — that  is,  its  conclusions  were  so  wholly  the 
creatures  of  experience,  and  its  application  so  dependent  upon  ever- 
changing  circumstances,  that  nought  could  be  predicated  of  them 
of  universal  applicability.  Political  doctrines  were  not  like  the 
axioms  and  definitions  of  the  geometer — of  intrinsic  truth,  wholly 
uninfluenced  by  time  and  place ;  their  worth  and  force  depended 
on  experience,  and  were  necessarily  as  changing  as  the  circum 
stances  on  which  all  experience  was  founded.  This  truth  had 
been  happily  expressed  by  Lord  Plunkett,  with  that  noble  per 
son's  characteristic  force  and  stern  precision  of  language.  It 
was  observed  by  him,  that  history  not  read  in  a  philosophical 
manner  was  merely  an  old  almanack.  Another  extraordinary  doc 
trine  had  been  advanced  with  respect  to  the  payment  of  debts  by 
nations,  and  their  manner  of  discharging  the  duties  which  devolve 


162  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

upon  them.  But  he  appealed  to  experience — was  it  not  a  fact, 
that,  among  all  the  democratic  revolutions  which  had  been  wit 
nessed,  payment  of  no  national  debt  had  been  refused  on  the 
ground  assigned  in  this  argument.  There  had  been  instances, 
both  in  monarchies  and  democracies,  of  the  payment  of  debts 
being  refused  on  account  of  the  difficulty  or  impossibility  of  paying 
them ;  but  no  such  course  had  been  pursued  as  that  which  was 
stated  by  the  noble  Lord.  Look  to  France — look  to  the  different 
changes  which  had  taken  place  in  the  representative  system  of 
that  country — look  to  the  changes  of  1815,  of  1817,  of  1821,  and 
of  1831,  which  were  all  constituted  on  entirely  different  principles, 
and  yet,  at  this  moment,  the  national  credit  was  preserved.  The 
only  instance  that  he  knew  of  a  government  refusing  to  discharge 
a  debt  on  the  ground  that  it  was  contracted  by  an  illegitimate 
authority,  was  not  the  case  of  a  democracy,  but  of  a  monarchy, 
where  the  government  refused  to  pay  a  debt  contracted  under  that 
very  constitution  which  the  king  had  sworn  to  maintain.  The 
noble  Lord  also  said,  that  the  classes  of  men  who  ought  not  to  be 
admitted  into  this  House  would  be  admitted  by  the  Bill,  and  that 
those  whom  it  would  be  desirable  to  admit  would  never  be  returned 
under  this  measure.  He  would  again  only  refer  to  experience,  and 
ask,  whether  that  was  the  case  in  large  towns  which  now  possess 
the  franchise  ?  The  noble  Lord  said,  that  the  eldest  sons  of  Peers 
would  find  great  difficulty  in  obtaining  seats  in  that  House.  Let 
him  look  over  the  lists  of  the  sons  of  Peers  returned  for  counties  at 
the  present  time.  Let  the  noble  Lord  look  to  Bedfordshire,  Buck 
inghamshire,  Dorsetshire,  Northamptonshire,  Northumberland,  Lin 
colnshire,  Westmoreland,  Devonshire,  Oxfordshire,  and  Cheshire ; 
and  he  would  find  that  there  were  at  present  but  few  sons  of  Peers 
returned  as  the  Representatives  of  the  people.  The  noble  Lord 
was  decidedly  inaccurate  in  one  of  his  statements ;  the  noble  Lord 
said,  that,  in  the  county  of  Northumberland  this  prejudice  existed 
to  a  very  great  extent,  and  to  that  cause  he  attributed  the  circum- 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  163 

stance  of  his  noble  friend,  the  under  Secretary  for  the  Colonies, 
being  unsuccessful  in  the  election  of  1826.  The  noble  Lord  forgot 
that  it  was  the  eldest  son  of  a  Peer  who  contested  the  election 
with  him,  and  was  returned  in  opposition  to  him.  The  noble  Lord 
had  not  proved  his  statement,  which  appeared  to  proceed  entirely 
upon  assumption.  There  was,  however,  another  class  of  men,  who, 
according  to  the  noble  Lord,  would  be  excluded  by  the  operation 
of  this  Bill — those  Members  who  had  been  returned  by  the  oligar 
chy  of  this  House.  The  noble  Lord  thought  it  a  hard  case  that 
they  should  be  excluded,  but  the  reason  for  their  exclusion  was 
a  proper  one,  for  they  were  not  sent  there  by  the  people.  The 
noble  Lord  also  stated,  that  we  had  long  enjoyed  the  blessings  and 
protection  of  good  Government,  repeating  that  the  system  had 
practically  worked  well,  and  that  the  nation  was,  in  fact,  in  a  state 
of  the  greatest  happiness  and  prosperity.  Indeed,  the  hon.  mem 
ber  for  Oxford  said,  that  we  had  attained  such  a  state  of  prosperity, 
that  we  ought  not  to  hazard  it  by  making  an  experiment.  If  this 
argument  proceeded  on  facts,  he  would  admit  that  it  was  unan 
swerable.  The  happiness  of  nations  might  be  influenced  by  causes 
unconnected  with  their  political  institutions ;  but,  on  the  whole, 
there  could  be  no  doubt  that  the  happiness  of  a  people  was  the 
best  test  of  the  form  of  Government  under  which  they  lived.  If 
it  were  proved  that  the  House  was  about  to  destroy  that  constitu 
tion  under  which  the  people  of  England  had  long  enjoyed  so  great 
a  measure  of  happiness  as  that  which  the  hon.  Gentleman  described, 
it  would  be  acting  the  part  of  madmen.  But  he  denied  that  the 
condition  of  the  people  of  England  was  one  of  unmixed  prosperity ; 
and  he  denied  that  the  Bill  was  a  measure  of  unmixed  destruction. 
When  he  heard  it  said,  over  and  over  again,  that  the  English  were 
the  happiest  people  under  the  sun — when  he  heard  this  laid  down 
as  an  undeniable  proposition,  which  it  would  be  unnecessary  to 
prove,  and  absurd  to  deny — he  could  not  but  feel  astonished  at 
such  an  argument.  From  the  first  acquaintance  he  had  had  with 


164  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

political  affairs,  he  had  heard,  from  all  sides  and  from  all  parties, 
statements  of  the  distressed  situation  of  the  people.  Speech  after 
speech  from  the  Throne,  parliamentary  address  after  parliamen 
tary  address,  had  admitted  the  existence  of  great  distress,  express 
ing  a  vain  hope  that  it  would  be  but  temporary.  He  scarcely 
remembered  the  time  in  which  some  great  interest  had  not  been 
complaining.  It  was  certain  that  the  people  of  this  country  were 
by  no  means  in  a  prosperous  condition.  The  hon.  Baronet,  the 
member  for  Oakhampton,  himself,  has  distinctly  told  us,  that  all 
the  cry  for  Reform  originated  in  the  severe  distress  of  the  people, 
and  the  indifference  of  the  House  to  their  complaints.  The  hon. 
member  for  Aldborough,  too,  frequently,  in  glowing  and  energetic 
terms,  set  forth  the  miserable  state  of  our  commercial  and  manu 
facturing  classes,  and  distinctly  attributed  their  distress  to  the  legis 
lative  measures  pursued  by  successive  Parliaments.  When  the 
question  of  the  currency,  the  renewal  of  the  corn-laws,  or  the  state 
of  trade  came  before  the  House,  then  the  country  was  described  in 
a  condition  of  the  deepest  distress,  plunged  into  a  state  of  absolute 
misery,  a  cloud  was  over  us,  our  present  condition  was  bad,  but 
our  future  prospects  were  alarming.  When  the  Reform  Bill  was 
under  discussion,  all  our  miseries  vanished  at  once,  the  sun  broke 
out,  the  clouds  cleared  away,  the  sky  was  bright,  and  we  were  the 
happiest  people  on  the  face  of  the  earth  !  If  hon.  Gentlemen 
wanted  a  large  issue  of  small  notes,  our  condition  was  again 
gloomy,  but  when  the  case  of  Gatton  or  Old  Sarum  was  noticed, 
then  we  laboured  under  no  other  imperfections  than  the  unfaithful 
ness  of  our  own  hearts.  Was  it  fair  for  hon.  Gentlemen  to  de 
scribe  the  country  as  in  a  state  of  the  greatest  misery,  when  they 
complained  of  the  political  economists,  and  to  speak  of  our  people 
as  the  happiest  under  Heaven  when  they  wished  to  attack  the 
Reformers  ?  For  different  opponents  they  had  different  weapons. 
The  Reformers  of  our  commercial  code,  they  slew  with  the  national 
distress,  and  with  the  national  prosperity  they  sought  to  annihilate 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  165 

the  Reformers  of  the  Constitution.     The  real  situation  of  the  coun 
try  was  midway  between  their  extremes.     There  was  much  truth 
in  both  descriptions,  but,  at  the  same  time,  there  was  much  fiction. 
He  would,  however,   give  his  opponents  their  choice.     If  they 
ascribed  to  the  institutions  of  the  country  the  national  greatness, 
let  them  also  ascribe  to  those  institutions  all  the  evils  the  nation 
endured.     If  it  was  the  Constitution  which  had  improved  the  pub 
lic  credit,  which  had  extended  our  trade — if  it  was  the  Constitution 
which  had  converted  the  barbarous  hordes  who  once  infested  the 
Scottish  borders  into  the  finest  peasantry  in  the  world — if  the  Con 
stitution  had  improved  our  machinery — if  we  owe  to  the  Constitu 
tion  the  important  factories  of  Manchester,  and  the  gigantic  docks 
of  Liverpool — we  were  bound,  by  strict   reason  and  justice,  to 
ascribe  to  the  Constitution,  on  the  other  hand,  the  heavy  burthen 
of  taxation  under  which  the  people  labour,  and  against  which  they 
had  to  struggle,  the  frequent  stagnation  of  trade,  commerce,  and 
manufactures,  and  the  dreadful  and  deplorable  situation  of  those 
parts  of  the  country  in  which  the  rate  of  wages  was  scarcely  suffi 
cient  for  the  support  of  animal  life,  in  which  the  labourer,  starved 
and  wretched  as  he  is,  considers  the  parochial  rates  as  a  fund,  not  for 
his  occasional  relief,  but  for  his  daily  maintenance  ;  in  which  men 
may  be  met  harnessed  to  cars  like  beasts  of  burthen,  and  in  which 
the  far-spreading  light  of  midnight  fires,  and  the  outrages  of  incen 
diaries,  have  but  too  often  indicated  wretchedness  and  despair, 
starvation  and   daring   recklessness.     Hon.    Gentlemen    opposite 
generally  content  themselves  with  pursuing  the  very  convenient 
course  of  contemplating  only  one  side  of  the  picture ;  they  dwelt 
very  fully  on  all  the  outward  signs  of  our  national  prosperity,  and 
they  concluded,  therefore,  that  the  existing  system  must  work  most 
beneficially.     There  were  also  violent  Reformers  who  had  adopted 
a  course  directly  the  reverse,  and  who  could  see  nothing  in  the 
present  state  of  the  country,  but  causes  for  apprehension  and  dis 
may.    He  could  not  agree  in  either  of  those  extreme  opinions. 


166  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

He  saw  great  cause  for  rejoicing,  but  also  great  cause  for  appre 
hension  and  dread.     We  had  vast  resources,  but  we  had  to  bear 
great  burthens.    We  had  magnificent  institutions,  but  they  were  sur 
rounded  by  the  most  appalling  misery,  and  heart-breaking  famine 
and  wretchedness.     If  he  was  to  adopt  the  lesson  of  hon.  Gentle 
men  opposite — if  he  was  to  judge  of  the  system  by  its  practical 
working — if  he  was  to  look  at  the  condition  of  society,  and  pro 
nounce  upon  the  merits  of  our  Constitution,  he  should  be  irresistibly 
led  to  this  conclusion,  as  he  saw  great  good  alloyed  by  great  evil, 
so  in  the  Constitution  there  must  be  sound  and  just  principles 
defaced  by  great  corruptions.     It  was  not  difficult  to   ascertain 
which  parts  of  the  Constitution  were  the  source  of  prosperity  ;  nor 
would  it  be  difficult  to  get  rid  of  those  corruptions  to  which  we 
must  attribute  our  distresses.     The  protection  which  the  laws  give 
to  the  liberty  and  property  of  the  subject  is  a  great  advantage 
undoubtedly,  and  the  mere  existence  of  a  House  of  Commons  in 
which,  however  defective  its -Constitution,  there  have  always  been 
some  Members  chosen  by  the  people,  and  zealous  for  their  service, 
in  which  the  smallest  minority  has  some  weight,  and  grievances,  if 
not  redressed,  can  at  least  be  exposed,  is,  undoubtedly,  some  secu 
rity  for  every  other  advantage.     To  these  circumstances  we  owe 
our  prosperity — and  it  was  proposed,  by  the  measure  then  under 
discussion,  to  give  additional  protection  to  the  subject  and  make 
the  House  of  Commons  more  useful  to  the  people.     The  distress 
which  the  country  had  suffered,  and  of  which  it  had  so  bitterly 
complained,  he  must  attribute  to  an  unthrifty  squandering  of  the 
public  money — to  the  injudicious  measures  of  Government — to  the 
negligence  of  that  House — to  defects  in  the  Representative  system, 
which  had  made  the  House  more  the  council  of  the  Government 
than  the  defender  of  the  people — to  laws  deservedly  unpopular, 
more  easily  adopted  than  they  could  have  been  under  the  eye  of 
a  reformed  Parliament — to  laws  made  for  the  benefit  of  particular 
classes  at  the  expense  of  the  people  generally — in  short,  he  attri- 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  167 

bated  the  distress  to  Ministers  who  had  not  yet  been  controlled  by 
Parliament,  and  to  Parliament  who  had  not  before  its  eyes  the 
fear  of  the  people.  The  noble  Lord  who  moved  the  Amendment, 
had  argued  that  in  no  instance  had  that  House  been  reluctant  to 
"  back  "  Ministers  in  measures  of  public  economy.  What !  the 
House  of  Commons  merely  backing  Government  who  might  be 
disposed  to  cut  down  useless  expenditure  of  the  public  money — 
the  House  of  Commons  whose  duty  it  was  to  force  every  Govern 
ment  to  effect  every  reduction  of  the  public  expenditure  compatible 
with  the  public  service.  Was  that  a  description  or  justification  of 
the  House  of  Commons  1  The  Commons  ought  to  go  before  the 
Government  in  measures  of  economy,  and  force  it  to  be  wise.  A 
reformed  House  of  Commons  would  do  it.  But  the  utmost  praise 
bestowed  on  it  by  the  noble  Lord — the  negative  praise  of  not 
being  a  greater  spendthrift  than  the  Government — was  upon  the 
House  of  Commons  the  bitterest  satire.  Those  who  supported  the 
Bill  were  charged  with  loving  democracy ;  for  his  part  he  had  no 
idea  that  any  species  of  Government  was  universally  applicable. 
There  was  no  universal  form  which  could  be  assured  of  good 
Government.  He  would  not  make  institutions  for  all  ages  and  all 
nations.  He  gave  his  assent  to  the  Bill  because  he  thought  it  was 
adapted  to  this  country  at  present,  but  he  should  think  it  unsuit 
able,  because  too  democratic,  for  Hindostan,  and  because  not  demo 
cratic  enough  for  New  York.  He  had  no  more  idea  that  a 
Government  could  be  called  good,  which  was  not  in  unison  with 
the  feelings,  habits,  and  opinions  of  the  people  governed,  than  that  a 
coat  could  be  called  good  which  was  not  suited  to  the  size  or  shape 
of  the  person  for  whom  it  was  intended.  A  coat  that  does  not  fit 
is  a  bad  coat,  though  it  has  been  cut  to  suit  the  Apollo  Belvidere. 
He  did  not  support  the  present  Bill  because  he  thought  that 
democratic  institutions  were  best  for  all  ages  and  for  all  countries, 
but  because  he  thought  that  a  more  democratic  constitution  than 
that  which  now  existed  in  this  country,  and  in  our  age,  would 


168  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

produce  good  Government ;  and  because  he  believed  that,  under 
the  present  system  of  Representation,  we  would  soon  have  no 
Government  at  all.  He  had  never  declared  war  with  anomalies — 
he  had  never,  to  quote  the  words  of  the  noble  Lord  opposite,  con 
founded  anomalies  with  abuses — he  had  never  lifted  up  his  hand 
against  any  anomaly,  unless  he  saw  in  it  a  cause  of  misgovernment. 
He  did  not,  therefore,  support  the  Bill  because  it  removed  ano 
malies,  but  because  it  eradicated  real  abuses,  and  averted  dangers, 
not  imaginary  or  remote,  but  palpable  and  near.  That,  he  con 
ceived,  would  be  the  practical  result  of  the  Reform  Bill.  Some 
men  sacrificed  practical  law  to  general  doctrines ;  they  spoke  with 
rapture  of  the  beautiful  machinery  of  the  Constitution,  but  would 
not  look  to  its  practical  working,  nor  take  into  consideration  exist 
ing  circumstances.  The  Representative  system,  as  it  at  present 
existed,  was  said  to  be  good.  Be  it  so  ;  but  it  was  good  in  vain, 
unless  it  suited  the  state  of  society  for  which  it  was  intended.  No 
Members  of  this  House  had  advocated  such  arguments  more 
strongly  than  the  present  opponents  of  this  measure,  when  the 
propriety  of  giving  liberal  institutions  to  other  countries  had  been 
under  discussion.  Whenever  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  intro 
duce  into  other  countries  our  best  institutions — whenever  it  had 
been  proposed  to  give  Spain  or  Naples  the  freedom  of  the  Press, 
or  the  security  of  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act,  how  often  had  it  been 
said,  that  it  was  folly  to  legislate  for  tHose  countries  as  if  they  were 
England — that  what  we  considered  tyrannical  the  Spaniards  and 
the  Neapolitans  cherished  as  a  privilege.  How  often  has  it  been 
said,  that  it  was  absurd  to  force  upon  a  people  institutions  which, 
however  good  in  themselves,  that  people  despise  !  Was  this  argu 
ment  to  be  used  only  on  one  side,  and  to  be  invalid  when  applied 
to  the  other  ?  When  Spain  or  Naples  was  a  question,  hon.  Gen 
tlemen  opposite  reminded  the  House  that  governments  should  be 
accommodated  to  the  wishes  of  the  people — that  popular  institu 
tions  could  not  be  useful  nor  stable,  unless  they  harmonized  with 


PARLJAMKXTAia'      REFORM.  1G9 

public  feeling  and  public  opinion.  But  if  this  argument  be  good 
when  applied  to  one  description  of  institutions,  was  it  not  equally 
good  when  applied  to  another?  Can  lion.  Gentlemen  mention  a 
greater  blessing  than  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act,  or  the  trial  by  jury  ? 
No  man  would  deny  that  it  would  have  been  absurd  to  apply  these 
institutions  to  nations  which  did  not  value  them.  Would  Gentle 
men,  however,  say,  that  the  existence  of  Old  Saruin  and  Gatton 
was  consistent  with  the  feelings  and  wishes  of  the  people  ?  That 
was  the  true  answer  to  those  arguments  which  had  been  urged  on 
former  occasions,  and  which  had  been  so  eloquently  advanced  to 
night  by  the  noble  Lord  who  opened  this  debate  on  the  subject 
of  prescription.  Prescription  was  certainly  advantageous  to  a 
Government,  because  it  was  very  probable  that  a  Government 
founded  on  prescription  would  possess  a  greater  share  of  public 
respect  than  one  which  was  born  yesterday  ;  but  if  a  Government 
did  not  possess  the  public  respect,  it  was  in  no  way  the  better  for 
prescription.  A  man  would  rather  have  the  measles  than  the 
cholera  (to  make  use  of  a  homely  illustration),  because  he  would 
be  less  likely  to  die  of  the  one  than  of  the  other ;  but  if  he  must 
die  of  the  measles,  why  he  might  as  well  have  the  cholera.  If  a 
government  did  not  possess  the  public  respect,  it  might  as  \vell  be 
a  Representative  system  of  yesterday  as  of  centuries  back.  In  fact, 
there  never  was  a  great  change  which  took  away  so  little  of  what 
was  really  valuable  as  this  did — which  took  away  so  little  of  what 
we  love  and  respect,  or  which  took  away  so  little  of  what  was  con 
nected  with  our  feelings  and  entwined  around  our  affections.  The 
Reformation  and  the  Revolution  of  1688,  and  the  first  revolution 
in  France,  shocked  the  prejudices  of  great  masses  of  people.  Glo 
rious  as  they  were,  and  calculated  to  promote  the  public  good, 
they  were  certainly  effected  at  the  expense  of  long-cherished  feel 
ings,  deep-rooted  affections,  and  close-entwined  associations;  but 
what  was  there  of  all  that  in  the  present  Bill  1  Did  it  propose  to 

touch  any  one  thing  which  the  people  esteemed,  respected,  or 
VOL.  i.  8 


170  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

revered  ?  Did  it  take  from  the  Constitution  anything  but  those 
which  Mr.  Burke  called  its  shameful  parts  ?  Did  it  endanger  the 
Government  of  the  country  ?  It  was  high  time  that  some  such 
measure  as  this  should  be  introduced  to  preserve  it,  that  the 
unpopular  and  worse  parts  of  the  Constitution  should  be  separated 
from  the  good,  or  they  would  all  perish  together.  But,  however 
forcible  the  claims  of  prescription  might  be,  the  argument  could 
not  be  justly  used  by  the  noble  Lord,  who  had  distinctly  declared 
himself  to  be  a  Reformer.  It  was  an  argument  which  no  Gentle 
man  had  a  right  to  advance,  who  was  disposed  to  agree  to  even 
the  most  moderate  Reform,  because  the  smallest  possible  change 
equally  destroyed  the  claim  of  prescription  as  the  most  extensive 
and  important  alteration.  Prescription  might,  like  honour,  be 
compared  to  Prince  Rupert's  drops,  "  one  part  cracked,  the  whole 
does  fly."  He  appealed  to  the  hon.  Gentlemen  opposite,  whether 
they  had  not,  in  the  debate  on  the  question  respecting  the  pro 
priety  of  giving  Members  to  Manchester,  Leeds,  and  Sheffield, 
asserted,  that  if  they  once  began  to  change,  there  would  be  no  end 
to  it.  But  they  had  now  departed  from  their  own  principle  ;  they 
admitted  the  necessity  of  some  change,  and  all  the  arguments  on 
the  score  of  prescription  must  be  at  an  end.  The  arguments  urged 
against  this  Bill  would  apply  with  equal  force  against  any  plan  of 
Reform  whatever.  A  large  majority  of  the  Opposition  called 
themselves  Moderate  Reformers ;  but  the  objections  which  they 
offered  to  the  present  Bill  could  be  applied  to  any  measure  of 
practical  reform.  They  talked  of  anomalies :  could  any  plan  of 
reform  be  devised  in  which  anomalies  would  not  exist  ?  All  reform 
must  consist  of  disfranchisement  and  enfranchisement.  To  effect 
these  objects  lines  must  be  drawn  somewhere,  and  distinctions 
made,  which  would  inevitably  create  anomalies,  unless  some  uni 
form  system  were  established,  and  at  variance  with,  and  sweeping 
away,  the  whole  of  our  present  institutions.  They  might  take 
population,  or  assessed  taxes,  or  whatever  test  they  pleased,  but 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  17 1 

tliere  would  always,  as  they  had  already  seen,  be  mathematicians 
ready  to  prove  that  their  mode  of-  computation  would  produce  ano 
malies.  The  most  symmetrical  system  of  Representation  was  that 
of  the  United  States — yet,  even  in  that,  it  would  be  easy  to  point 
out  anomalies.  It,  therefore,  became  moderate  Reformers,  who 
objected  to  the  Bill  on  the  ground  of  anomalies,  to  consider 
.whether  any  plan  of  moderate  Reform  could  be  produced  in  which 
there  would  not  be  anomalies.  Those  who  support  any  plan  of 
Reform  must  admit  one  of  two  things  ;  either  that  the  present 
system  did  not  work  well — or  that,  working  well,  it  ought  to  be 
changed,  in  deference  to  what  must  be  considered  unreasonable 
clamour,  to  which  they  were  prepared  to  bend.  Any  plan  would 
also  be  open  to  the  objection  of  not  being  final ;  and  none  more  so 
than  a  very  niggardly  one.  Of  every  plan  of  Reform,  it  might  be 
said,  that  it  was  the  first  step  to  revolution.  It  would  always  afford 
an  opportunity  of  making  allusions  to  the  scenes  of  the  French 
revolution ;  to  the  guillotine — to  heads  carried  upon  pikes,  and  all 
the  horrors  of  that  eventful  period.  All  these  topics,  however,  it 
would  be  recollected,  were  brought  into  requisition  when  the  only 
question  before  the  House  was,  whether  Manchester,  Leeds,  and 
Birmingham  should  have  representatives.  Most  of  the  hon.  Mem 
bers  opposite  called  themselves  Reformers  ;  and  he  was  entitled  to 
demand  their  plan  of  Reform,  in  order  that  the  House  and  country 
might  see  whether  the  objections  which  they  had  raised  be  appli 
cable  to  the  Ministerial  plan  alone,  or  be  objections  to  which  any 
plan  of  Reform  must  be  liable,  and  such,  therefore,  as  no  person 
who  called  himself  a  Reformer  was  entitled  to  employ.  That 
something  must  be  done  was  admitted  on  all  hands  ;  While  the 
Ministerial  Bill  was  the  only  plan  of  Reform  which  had  been 
proposed*  The  hon.  Member  who  had  just  sat  down  said  that, 
at  the  last  election,  people  were  compelled  to  vote  in  favour  of 
candidates  who  supported  the  Reform  Bill,  because  there  was 
no  other  plan  left  before  the  country.  They  had  no  choice — it 


172  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

was  this  plan  or  none.  He  had  a  right,  under  these  circumstances, 
to  call  on  the  leaders  of  the  hon.  Members  opposite  to  let  the 
country  know  what  their  plan  was ;  and  he  was  entitled,  in  parti 
cular,  to  make  this  appeal  to  the  right  hon.  member  for  Tamworth; 
The  hon.  Baronet  stood  at  the  head  of  a  great  party  ;  he  had  filled 
a  high  situation  in  the  state,  and  might  possibly  fill  a  still  higher, 
and  these  were  circumstances  which  not  only  gave  him  (Mr.  Ma- 
caulay)  a  right,  but  made  it  his  duty,  to  make  observations  freely, 
but  respectfully,  on  the  public  conduct  of  the  right  hon.  Baronet. 
After  thirteen  months  of  discussion  on  the  question  of  Reform,  all 
that  the  House  knew  of  the  opinion  of  one  of  its  most  distinguished 
Members  was,  that  he  was  opposed  to  the  Ministerial  plan  of  Re 
form.  He  had,  indeed,  declared,  that,  though  he  would  not  him 
self  have  brought  forward,  yet  he  would  have  assented  to,  a  mea 
sure  of  moderate  Reform.  What  the  plan  of  Reform  was  to  which 
the  right  hon.  Baronet  would  have  assented — on  what  grounds  he 
would  have  given  his  support  to  a  measure  which  he  thought  un 
necessary — and  what  were  the  reasons  which  made  him  to  hesitate 
to  bring  forward  such  a  plan  himself,  he  had  not  yet  explained  to 
the  House.  The  question  of  Reform  might  be  a  question  which 
divided  men's  opinions,  but  with  respect  to  the  importance  of  the 
question  all  were  agreed  ;  and  he  could  not  understand,  on  looking 
to  the  high  character  and  station  of  the  right  hon.  Gentleman,  how 
he  could  shrink  from  the  responsibility  of  proposing  such  a  mea 
sure  as,  in  his  opinion,  would  satisfy  the  country,  and  be  less  inju 
rious  in  its  effects  than  the  Ministerial  proposition.  Yet  all  that 
the  right  hon.  Gentleman  had  as  yet  said  was,  that  he  disliked  the 
plan  proposed  by  Government,  and  that  there  was  a  something 
which  would  have  met  with  his  assent,  but  that  Ministers  had  not 
hit  upon  that  something.  But  let  the  right  hon.  baronet  observe 
the  state  of  the  public  mind,  the  excitement  which  prevailed  on 
the  subject,  and  the  delight  with  which  the  Ministerial  plan  of  Re 
form  had  been  received  by  the  people  ;  and  then  let  him  ask  him- 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  173 

self  whether  he  was  prepared  to  bear  the  responsibility  of  the  con 
sequences  which  would  follow  its  rejection.  But  the  right  hon. 
Baronet  would  doubtless  say,  "  that  is  no  affair  of  mine :  the 
excitement  is  your  own."  [Cheers .]  He  supposed,  from  that 
cheer,  that  the  answer  was  considered  satisfactory  by  the  hon. 
Gentlemen-  opposite.  The  next  generation  would  judge  them. 
When  the  dearest  interests  of  the  empire  were  at  stake,  the  world 
would  hold  them  responsible,  not  only  for  the  evil  which  they  had 
done,  but  for  the  good  which  they  had  omitted  to  do.  History 
would  not  hold  such  men  guiltless  if  they  did  not  take  enlarged 
views  of  the  state  of  society  ;  if  they  did  not  rise  to  great  occasions ; 
and  if,  when  the  public  good  required  them  to  speak  out,  for  fear 
of  compromising  themselves,  they  held  their  tongues,  or  spoke  in 
such  a  way  as  not  to  be  understood.  If  any  persons  were  to  be  hold 
responsible  for  the  public  excitement,  the  late  Ministers  had  more 
to  answer  for  than  the  present.  But  the  great  question  was,  not 
"  what  person  is  to  blame,"  but  "  what  is  now  to  be  done  ?"  That 
was  the  question  before  the  House  and  the  country ;  and  that  was 
the  question  which  he  thought  he  had  a  right  to  ask  the  right  hon. 
Baronet  opposite.  The  right  hon.  Baronet  possessed  pre-eminent 
talent  for  debate  ;  but  the  country  had  a  right  to  expect  from  him 
something  of  a  higher  character.  The  country  had  a  right  to  call 
on  him  for  his  opinion  of  the  principles  upon  which  Reform  ought 
to  be  founded,  and  of  the  extent  to  which  concession  should  bo 
made  to  the  public  wish  at  such  a  crisis  as  the  present.  He  asked 
the  right  lion.  Baronet  whether  he  should  wish  it  to  go  down  to 
posterity  that  he,  in  the  most  eventful  period  of  British  history, 
when  the  dearest  interests  of  the  empire  were  at  stake — that  he, 
being  one  of  the  most  distinguished  members  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  brought  some  sound,  and  many  specious  objections 
against  everything  proposed  by  others — hinted  in  general  terms 
that  something  might  be  done,  but  never  could  be  induced  to 
explain  what  that  something  was  ?  Did  the  right  hon.  Baronet 


174  PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM. 

suppose  that  lie  could  ever  again  conduct  the  affairs  of  the  Govern 
ment  on  Anti-reform  principles  ?  It  would  be  madness  for  any 
Government,  pledged  to  no  Reform,  to  attempt  to  go  on  with  the 
present  House  of  Commons.  They  must  dissolve  the  Parliament, 
and  appeal  to  the  people  in  a  moment  of  fearful  excitement ;  and 
they  would  then  find  that  they  had  committed  Jthe  same  error 
which  Charles  committed  when  he  dissolved  the  Short  Parliament, 
and  exchanged  it  for  the  Long  Parliament.  But  supposing  that 
such  a  Government  gained  more  by  the  elections  than  could  pos 
sibly  be  expected,  and  supposing  that  they  should  obtain  a  majority 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  still,  he  asked,  what  would  be  the  case 
out  of  doors?  The  agitation  which  prevailed  in  the  year  1817 
and  in  1819,  at  the  time  of  Queen  Caroline's  return  to  England, 
and  during  the  latter  period  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington's  adminis 
tration,  would  seem  peace  and  tranquillity  in  comparison  with  the 
disorder  and  excitement  which  would  immediately  spread  through 
out  the  country.  Tumults,  seditions,  agitators  without  end,  would 
arise.  Agitators  they  had  at  present ;  but  were  they  disposed  to 
try  what  would  be  their  power  under  a  Government  hostile  to 
Reform  ?  It  was  impossible  to  keep  them  down  by  a  strong  hand, 
and,  if  they  would  not  have  liberty,  they  must  have  licentiousness. 
Measures  of  coercion  and  security  would  be  of  no  avail.  Charles 
tried  them  against  Hampden,  and  failed  :  James  employed  them 
against  the  Bishops,  and  failed.  It  was  the  same  with  Mr.  Pitt, 
when  he  prosecuted  Hardy  and  Home  Tooke;  and  the  same  with 
Lord  Castlereagh,  when  he  passed  the  Six  Acts  in  1819  ;  and  the 
same  would  be  found  by  any  Government  which  attempted  to 
smother  the  complaints  of  the  people  of  England  without  redress 
ing  their  grievances.  There  was  only  this  simple  alternative — • 
Reform,  or  anarchy.  About  the  result  he  had  no  fear,  for  he 
placed  the  fullest  reliance  in  his  Majesty's  Ministers.  If  he  required 
any  other  pledges  from  them  than  those  which  he  found  in  their 
character,  he  found  them  in  their  position.  To  abandon  their 


PARLIAMENTARY     REFORM.  175 

country  would  be  to  abandon  themselves.  They  had  done  that 
which  changed  the  character  of  our  institutions.  They  had  taken 
no  slight  step — no  step  that  could  be  easily  retraced,  on  the  1st 
of  March,  1831.  Before  them  was  glory — behind  them  was  dis 
grace.  For  himself,  he  believed  that  their  virtues,  abilities,  and 
firmness  would  be  found  equal  to  the  momentous  occasion,  and 
that  their  names  would  to  the  latest  period  be  inseparably  asso 
ciated  with  the  noblest  measure  that  ever  restored  to  health  a  cor 
rupt  Government,  and  bound  together  the  hearts  of  a  divided 
people. 


176 


ON  THE  RESIGNATION  OF  MINISTERS  * 
MAY  10,  1832. 

IN  the  course  of  the  last  eighteen  months,  they  had  often  been  on 
the  verge  of  anarchy  ;  but,  until  this  crisis,  he  had  never  known 
what  it  was  to  be  once  anxious  on  the  subject  of  political  affairs. 
If  ever  there  was  a  time  which  called  for  the  firmness,  honesty, 
wisdom,  or  energy,  of  a  political  assembly — if  ever  there  was  a 
question  in  which  the  interest  of  the  community  was  involved,  that 
time  was  the  present — that  question  was  the  question  of  his  noble 
friend.  Amidst  all  his  anxiety,  however,  there  was  ample  cause 
for  joy.  He  remembered  with  delight  the  noble  conduct  which 
that  House  had  pursued  from  the  day  they  first  met  in  that  place 
up  to  the  present  moment ;  and  he  anticipated  with  confidence 
that  the  majority  would  adhere  to  that  noble  line  of  conduct  which 
was  indispensable  to  their  own  honour,  and  the  safety  of  the  com 
monweal.  It  was  pleasing  to  reflect  that  they  had  still  leaders  to 
whom  they  could  look  up  with  confidence  and  pride,  that  those 
leaders  were  deserving  of  the  support  which  they  had  given  them, 
and  who  had  fallen,  indeed,  but  it  was  with  unblemished  honour. 
Amidst  the  dark  events  by  which  they  were  surrounded,  there  was 
this  consolation — their  sincerity  as  Statesmen  had  been  put  to  the 
test,  and  it  was  not  found  wanting.  By  the  voice  of  the  people 
they  were  brought  into  power — by  that  voice  they  were  supported 
in  power — and  they  retired  from  power  rather  than  betray  the 
people  who  trusted  them.  They  would  thus  carry  with  them  to 
their  retirement — and  very  brief  he  trusted  it  would  be — the  proud 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  xii.  p.  849-857. 


RESIGNATION     OF     MINISTERS.  177 

satisfaction  that  their  conduct  was  fully  appreciated  by  the  people. 
He  did  not  feel  bound,  on  the  present  occasion,  to  enter  into  any 
discussion  on  the  subject  of  Reform,  but  he  should  address  himself 
at  once  to  the  particular  Motion  before  the  House.  He  was  sure 
that  the  right  hon.  Baronet  opposite  must,  on  a  little  reflection,  see 
that  he  was  wrong  in  asserting  that  that  House  had  no  right  to 
interfere  with  the  prerogative  of  the  King  in  the  choice  of  his 
Ministers.  It  appeared  to  him  that  there  was  nothing  more  in 
accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  Constitution — nothing  for 
which  there  could  not  be  found  more  numerous  examples  in  the 
best  times  of  our  history — than  the  course  which  was  now  pro 
posed  to  be  adopted  by  the  House,  namely,  the  respectfully  offer 
ing  its  suggestions  to  the  Sovereign  as  to  the  choice  of  his  Ministers. 
The  appointment  of  his  Ministers  undoubtedly  belonged  to  the 
Sovereign,  but  it  was  a  clear  constitutional  doctrine,  to  which  he 
did  not  know  a  single  exception,  that,  with  respect  to  every  pre 
rogative  of  the  King,  that  House  had  the  right  respectfully  to  offer 
its  advice  and  its  suggestions  to  the  Sovereign.  That  was  a  posi 
tion,  he  was  sure,  which  a  person  of  the  constitutional  knowledge 
of  the  right  hon.  Baronet  would  not  feel  disposed  to  dispute,  and 
he  was  equally  sure  that  it  would  not  be  denied  that,  under  certain 
circumstances,  that  House  had  a  right  to  offer  its  advice  to  the 
Sovereign  as  to  the  persons  whom  it  judged  fit  to  fill  the  offices  of 
his  Ministers,  as  it  had  often  suggested  to  the  King  the  names  of 
persons  fit  to  fill  offices  in  the  Church,  or  fit,  on  account  of  their 
services  in  the  army  or  navy,  to  fill  any  public  offices  under  the 
Crown.  He,  therefore,  laid  down  this  as  a  position  that  would  not 
be  controverted,  that  the  House  had  a  right,  with  respect  to  the 
prerogative  of  the  Sovereign  in  the  choice  of  his  Ministers,  as  with 
regard  to  all  the  other  prerogatives  of  the  Crown,  to  offer  its 
respectful  advice.  He  undoubtedly  did  understand  the  present 
Resolution  as  a  recommendation  to  his  Majesty  to  retain  his  pre 
sent  Ministers.  He  could  not  see  how  it  could  be  otherwise  under- 

8* 


178  RESIGNATION     OF     MINISTERS. 

stood,  for  he  could  not  discover  any  other  materials  from  which 
such  a  Ministry  as  that  which  they  recommended  to  his  Majesty 
could  be  formed.  "  But,"  said  the  hon.  member  for  Thetford,  "  the 
Ministers  had  voluntarily  retired  from  office,  and  the  House,  in 
adopting  such  a  Resolution  as  this,  would  be  advising  his  Majesty 
to  force  office  on  men  who  would  not  undertake  it."  Surely  such 
a  sophism  was  unworthy  of  the  acute  mind  of  that  hon.  Member. 
When  we  advise  the  King  to  take  back  his  Ministers,  we  also 
advise  him  to  take  back  their  advice  with  them.  That  was  what 
he  (Mr.  Macaulay)  meant  by  the  vote  which  he  would  give  on  this 
Motion,  and  he  was  sure  it  was  on  such  an  understanding  that  it 
would  be  supported  by  a  majority  of  that  House.  Now,  as  to  the 
objection  raised  to  the  creation  of  Peers,  it  amounted,  if  he  under 
stood  it  right,  to  this — that  a  creation  of  Peers,  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  a  measure,  even  of  the  most  vital  importance,  went  to 
destroy  the  authority  and  weight  of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  was, 
therefore,  indefensible  upon  any  principle  of  the  Constitution.  He 
conceived  that  the  prerogative  vested  in  the  Crown,  of  creating 
Peers,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  any  public  question,  was  a 
valuable  and  useful  power,  the  existence  of  which  was  absolutely 
necessary,  in  order,  on  important  occasions,  to  obviate  great  and 
pressing  inconveniences.  He  believed  it  would  be  found  that  the 
exercise  of  such  a  power  was  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of 
the  Constitution,  as  laid  down  by  the  greatest  constitutional 
writers  on  all  sides  and  of  all  parties.  A  reference  to  Swift,  on  the 
one  side,  to  Walpole  and  Steele  on  the  other,  and  to  De  Lolme  as 
a  middle  and  impartial  authority,  would  satisfactorily  bear  out  that 
assertion,  and  would  prove  that  the  Constitution  did  not  recognize 
any  branch  of  the  Legislature  existing  as  the  House  of  Lords  would 
exist  if  this  prerogative  were  not  vested  in  the  Crown,  with  uncon 
trolled  and  irresponsible  power.  They  knew  that  kings  had  fallen 
upon  erroneous  courses,  and  what  had  happened  in  the  case  of  an 
hereditary  monarchy  might  happen  in  the  case  of  an  hereditary 


RESIGNATION     OF     MINISTERS.  179 

nobility.  We  had  had  a  James  II.,  and  it  was  not  beyond  the 
range  of  possibility  that  we  might  have  a  House  of  Lords  full  of 
high  spirit,  imbued  with  prejudices  that  could  not  be  overcome ; 
and,  unfortunately,  opposed  to  the  wishes  and  feelings  of  the 
people,  and  was  there  to  be  no  means  of  remedying  such  a  state 
of  things  ?  The  Constitution  afforded  the  means  of  dealing  with  a 
factious  and  perverse  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Com 
mons,  for  the  King  could  dissolve  the  Parliament,  and  appeal  to 
the  people,  at  a  time  when  he  might  think  that  appeal  would  stand 
the  best  chance  of  success.  Again,  that  House  had  a  check  upon 
the  King,  for  it  could  refuse  the  supplies ;  and  was  there  to  be  no 
check  at  all  upon  the  House  of  Lords  ?  Was  there  anything  in 
the  Constitution  of  that  illustrious  assembly — the  House  of  Lords 
— which  exempted  it  from  the  necessity  of  some  similar  controlling 
check  ?  If  that  power,  which  was  subject  to  abuse  from  Kings  and 
Commons,  could  never  be  abused  by  Dukes  or  Earls,  the  best 
course  was,  to  leave  the  whole  Government  in  the  hands  of  so  pure, 
wise,  and  virtuous  an  assembly,  to  abolish  the  Monarchy,  and  to 
dissolve  themselves.  But,  if  this  were  not  the  case,  was  it  not  mon 
strous  to  imagine  that  the  House  of  Lords  should  be  exempt  from 
some  check  like  that  to  which  both  King  and  Commons  are  sub 
ject  ?  Were  there  no  check,  the  only  appeal  of  the  people  could 
be  to  physical  force ;  but,  fortunately,  the  Constitution  affords  the 
means  required,  by  conferring  on  the  King  the  prerogative  of  mak 
ing  Peers.  He  'admitted  that  there  was  some  danger  that  the 
power  might  be  abused  ;  but  of  two  dangers,  he  thought  it  proper 
to  choose  the  least ;  and  when  they  remembered  that  the  Ministers 
who  advised  the  creation  of  Peers  would  be  responsible  for  that 
advice,  he  thought  it  a  power  not,  much  likely  to  be  abused. 
Unless  some  one  could  bring  in  a  Peerage  Bill  much  less  liable  to 
objection  than  the  Peerage  Bill  of  Lord  Sunderland,  he  thought 
the  King's  prerogative  a  useful  one,  and  one  which,  at  this  period, 
he  was  called  upon  to  exert.  As  to  impeachment,  which  had  been 


180  RESIGNATION     OF     MINISTERS. 

spoken  of,  who  would  venture  to  impeach  the  Ministers  for  a  step 
absolutely  essential  to  the  welfare  of  the  kingdom  ?  This  exercise 
of  the  Royal  prerogative  might  be  necessary,  too,  for  the  preserva 
tion  of  the  very  existence  of  the  other  estates  of  the  realm,  and 
justified  on  grounds  of  the  purest  public  policy.  Let  them  suppose 
a  case  in  which  the  two  Houses  were  placed  in  direct  and  imme 
diate  collision  by  an  uniform  and  continued  difference  of  opinion 
on  every  question.  Suppose  the  House  of  Lords  was  to  be  for 
Avar,  and  the  House  of  Commons  for  peace — suppose  the  House 
of  Commons  to  be  for  one  Ministry,  and  the  House  of  Lords  for 
another — suppose,  too,  the  struggles  consequent  on  these  differ 
ences  of  opinion  to  be  continued — suppose  that  they  lasted  through 
out  an  entire  Session  of  Parliament — suppose  that  they  were 
found  so  inveterate  as  to  be  incurable  even  by  a  dissolution  of 
the  House  of  Commons — -why,  what,  he  would  ask,  must  be  the 
consequence  of  such  a  state  of  things  ?  That  the  whole  machinery 
of  Government  must  be  stopped  unless  his  Majesty  exercised  his 
prerogative  by  giving  one  of  the  parties  a  predominance.  The 
Government  must  in  such  a  case  stand  still,  or  new  Peers  must  be 
created.  But,  then,  it  is  urged  against  this  creation,  the  monstrous 
anomaly  of  which  you  would  be  guilty  by  concurring  in  the  crea 
tion  of  Peers  merely  to  give  one  party  an  ascendancy  over  the 
other  on  a  particular  question.  He  would  ask  them  to  look  a  little 
more  narrowly  into  that  question.  He  thought  he  should  be  able 
to  show  that  it  was  a  course  just,  reasonable,  and  perfectly  defen 
sible  on  all  principles  of  law  and  of  equity.  If  the  objections  were 
so  strong  to  the  creation  of  a  large  number  of  Peers  in  one  day, 
were  there  none  to  the  creation  of  more  than  two  hundred  in  less 
than  half  of  a  century  ?  Suppose  that  one  party  holding  power  for 
nearly  fifty  years  ennobled,  fvom  time  to  time,  nearly  two  hundred 
of  its  own  supporters,  while  all  others  were  passed  by  ;  suppose  all 
the  Peers  for  that  period  to  be  chosen  from  one  faction,  while  all 
rank  was  denied  to  the  other ;  was  there  anything  so  monstrously 


RESIGNATION     OF     MINISTERS.  181 

unconstitutional  in  that  other  party  setting  themselves  right  in  the 
political  balance,  and  resuming  that  station  in  the  House  of  Lords 
to  which  they  were  entitled  when  they  obtained  the  ascendancy  ? 
If  it  was  unconstitutional  for  the  Whigs,  when  they  obtained 
power,  to  resume  that  balance  of  influence  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
of  which  the  long  tenure  of  office  by  their  adversaries  had  deprived 
them,  then  the  inevitable  result  must  be,  that  the  possession  of 
political  ascendancy  for  thirty  or  forty  years  would  be  a  possession 
for  ever.  It  was  no  longer  a  question  of  public  opinion  or  political 
rectitude,  but  it  must  be  a  question  of  whether  one  party  or  the 
other  had  been  longest  in  office  ;  of  whether  Mr.  Pitt  or  Mr.  Fox 
held  the  Premiership  in  1800  ;  or  Lord  Grey  or  Lord  Liverpool 
presided  over  the  Cabinet  in  1820.  The  upholding  of  such  doc 
trines  was  not  to  be  tolerated  even  for  an  instant.  It  would  make 
the  present  generation  the  mere  slaves  of  the  past,  and  be  utterly 
inconsistent  with  the  first  principles  of  politics.  But  the  matter 
might  be  placed  on  still  stronger  grounds  than  that.  Suppose  this 
party,  holding  power  so  long,  to  have  adhered  to  principles  tending 
one  way,  while  public  opinion  was  constantly  and  rapidly  verging 
towards  the  other  ;  suppose  the  party  which  possessed  a  majority 
in  the  House  of  Lords  to  be  devoted  to  a  course  of  policy  directly 
contrary  to  the  feelings  and  wishes  of  the  nation  ;  suppose,  in  fact, 
the  House  of  Lords  and  the  nation  to  have  been  during  the  wliole 
of  that  period  moving  in  diverging  directions ;  supposing,  as  the 
result,  an  overwhelming  majority  in  favour  of  the  one  course  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  an  equally  overwhelming  majority  in 
favour  of  a  different  course  in  the  House  of  Lords  ;  he  did  not 
mean  to  say  that  this  state  of  things  was  decidedly  injurious  to  the 
Crown  or  to  the  country,  or  that  it  might  not  arise  out  of  the 
working  of  the  Constitution  ;  but,  then,  he  would  ask  them  in  such 
a  case  to  look  at  the  situation  of  the  Lords.  The  House  of  Lords 
was  not  strictly  a  representative  body,  nor  did  he  contend  that  it 
should  be  so;  but  it  must,  nevertheless,  be  mixed  up  a  little  with 


182  RESIGNATION     OF     MINISTERS. 

the  other  classes  of  the  country,  and  have  some  connection  and 
affinity  with  the  general  interests  of  that  people  from  whom  they 
derived  their  wealth  and  importance.  Under  such  circumstances 
as  he  had  attempted  to  describe,  to  add  to  the  number  of  the  House 
of  Lords  out  of  the  great  mass  of  the  intelligence  and  respectability 
of  the  country  would  not  impair,  but,  on  the  contrary,  extend  their 
influence — would  not  swamp,  but,  on  the  contrary,  support  their 
power  and  independence.  This  was  his  view  of  the  condition  in 
which  they  were  placed,  and  he  saw  no  other  course  left  for  them 
to  adopt  than  by  a  large  addition  to  the  numbers  of  the  House  of 
Lords  from  the  supporters  of  that  party  so  long  excluded  from 
power,  to  place  the  Aristocracy  in  harmony  with  the  other  institu 
tions  of  the  State.  It  appeared  to  him  that  everything  was  in 
favour  of  this  creation — the  letter  of  the  law  and  the  strongest 
reasons  of  public  policy.  The  power,  of  the  King  to  exercise  his 
prerogative  for  the  purpose  was  undoubted ;  and  the  letter  of  the 
law  was  in  harmony  with  the  letter  of  the  highest  law  of  all — the 
safety  of  the  State.  He,  therefore,  for  once  concurred  most  cor 
dially  in  the  Motion  of  the  noble  Lord,  and  concurred  with  him 
also  in  the  expressions  of  regret  for  the  retirement  of  those  who 
had  supported  the  Reform  Bill,  and  in  his  desire  that  none  should 
be  looked  for  as  their  successors  who  were  not  prepared  to  give  that 
Bill'their  unqualified  concurrence.  If  that  Government,  which  had 
supported  the  Reform  Bill  with  so  much  zeal  and  so  much  sincerity, 
did  not  return  to  office,  then  he  would  say  the  Bill  was  lost  to  the 
country.  Lost,  he  would  say,  because  he  could  not  conjecture  how 
those  who  would  then  have  the  management  of  it,  could,  even  in 
a  mutilated  form  (for  mutilated  it  would  be),  consent  that  it  should 
be  carried.  That  the  hon.  Members  who  sat  on  the  benches  oppo 
site  should  attempt  to  carry  such  a  Bill  seemed  to  him  utterly 
impossible ;  and,  although  one  or  two  expressions  which  fell  from 
them  might  bear  the  interpretation  of  such  an  intention,  he  could 
not  believe  they  were  spoken  in  earnest.  He  would  not  go  bacfc 


RESIGNATION     OF     MINISTERS.  183 

to  the  history  of  East  Retford  in  1829  and  1830.  He  would  take 
a  much  later  period.  He  would  speak  of  those  who  abandoned 
office  not  eighteen  months  ago — who  resigned  their  places  because 
they  were  hostile  to  all  Reform  whatever.  He  would  speak  of 
those  who,  from  the  1st  of  March,  when  the  first  Bill  was  intro 
duced,  down  to  the  final  dismissal  of  the  second  Bill  to  the  House 
of  Lords,  attacked  all  its  provisions  with  the  most  inveterate  hos 
tility  ;  who  stigmatized  all  disfranchisement  as  robbery,  and  all 
enfranchisement  as  usurpation  ;  and  who  bellowed  Universal  Suf 
frage  as  a  means  of  terror  into  the  ears  of  the  rich,  and  declaimed 
about  101.  Aristocracy  to  the  poor.  It  was  of  these  hon.  Members 
and  their  party  he  spoke ;  and  he  could  not  think  it  possible  that 
they  would  so  descend  as  to  give  their  support  and  countenance  to 
the  Reform  Bill.  He  believed  they  had  too  much  honesty ;  he 
believed  they  had  too  strong  a  sense  of  shame.  The  inconsistency 
of  the  act  would  be  too  glaring — the  time  was  too  short — the 
memory  of  their  former  professions  was  too  recent — the  motive 
would  be  too  obvious.  He  could  not  trust  himself  to  believe  that 
the  party  of  which  he  spoke  could  entertain  an  idea  of  supporting 
the  Reform  Bill.  The  party,  then,  that — if  they  accepted  office — 
could  carry  the  Reform  Bill,  would  not  carry  it ;  and  there 
remained  only  that  other  party  which  might  be  disposed  to  attempt 
it,  but  who  were  much  too  powerless  and  insignificant  to  form  an 
Administration.  He  did  not  mean  to  designate  those  attached  to 
that  party  offensively,  but  the  House  probably  understood  that  he 
alluded  to  those  who  were  commonly  known  by  the  name  of  the 
"  waverers."  From  that  party,  he  apprehended,  it  was  utterly 
impossible  to  select  a  number  of  men  who  could  conduct  the  public 
business  of  the  House  of  Commons.  The  case,  then,  stood  thus  : 
those  who  might  support  the  Bill  could  not  form  a  Government ; 
and  those  who  could  form  a  Government  could  not  support  the 
Bill  with  any  regard  to  their  public  character,  or  with  any  respect 
to  political  consistency,  unless  with  the  introduction  of  most  exten- 


184  RESIGNATION     OF     MINISTERS. 

sive  amendments.  The  Bill  he  regarded,  therefore,  as  lost ;  and, 
on  the  whole,  he  thought  it  better  it  should  be  lost  than  suffer 
mutilation  in  the  hands  of  its  enemies,  and  be  drained  of  that  which 
they  called  its  venom,  but  which  he  considered  its  life-blood.  The 
Members  of  his  side  of  the  House  had  been  accused  of  making  pro 
phecies  which  they  accomplished  themselves,  and  no  one  had  been 
more  subjected  to  these  accusations  than  he  had.  They  had  been 
accused  of  prophesying  the  agitation  which  they  endeavoured  to 
excite.  The  fault  of  that  argument  was,  that  it  might  be  used  at 
all  times,  with  the  same  success,  whenever  a  deliberative  assembly 
was  warned  of  the  dangers  which  awaited  its  decisions.  It  was  the 
duty,  however,  of  those  who  believed  such  dangers  existed  to  speak 
out,  and  to  speak  boldly.  If  they  spoke  for  the  purpose  of  exciting 
discontent,  they  were  guilty  of  a  great  crime ;  but  his  conscience 
acquitted  him  of  any  such  intention.  He  knew  that  he  was  as 
anxious  as  any  man  for  the  preservation  of  order  and  the  security 
of  property.  He  knew  that  he  was  prepared  to  contend  as  strongly 
against  the  errors  of  the  people  as  to  argue  for  their  rights ;  and 
he  would,  at  all  times,  rather  be  the  victim  of  their  injustice  than 
its  instrument.  The  time,  however,  might  come  when  those  who 
derided  the  warning  would  be  sensible  of  its  value — when  those 
who  laughed  at  the  danger  might  witness  the  evils  they  could  no 
longer  avert — when  those  who  despised  all  advice  might  feel  them 
selves  bereft  of  all  relief.  The  time  might  come  when  the  candid 
but  unpretending  counsel  of  a  Cordelia  would  be  found  preferable 
to  the  bold  but  crafty  recommendations  of  a  Goneril.  Let  the 
Legislature  depend  on  those  who  boldly  declared  their  opinions  as 
to  the  danger  of  rejecting  Reform,  rather  than  upon  the  smooth 
tongued  Conservatives  ;  the  former,  he  contended,  were  the  only 
true  Conservatives.  He  would  not  cry  "  peace,  peace,"  when 
"  there  was  no  peace."  As  to  those  who  might  attempt  to  play 
the  part  of  a  Polignac  Ministry  in  England,  and  endeavour  to  carry 
on  the  affairs  of  the  State  without  public  confidence,  nay,  in  direct 


RESIGNATION     OF     MINISTERS.  185 

opposition  to  the  sentiments  of  the  people,  he  told  those  individuals 
that  they  had  to  do  with  a  people  more  firm  and  determined  than 
the  French,  and  he  warned  them  to  take  care  how  they  ventured 
on  the  attempt.  Why,  the  ink  was  scarcely  yet  dry  of  the  protests 
which  noble  Lords  had  entered  against  the  Reform  Bill.  Their 
speeches  were  yet  ringing  in  the  people's  ears,  in  which  they 
denounced  the  measure,  and  would  they  attempt  to  take  office  ? 
In  attempting  to  administer  the  Government  they  were  so  eager  to 
grasp,  they  must  either  shamelessly  desert  the  whole  of  their 
former  protestations,  or  go  in  direct  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  the 
majority  of  that  House.  And,  even  if  they  could  succeed  in 
overcoming  the  majority  of  that  House,  they  would  still  have 
dangers  before  them  from  which  Mr.  Pitt  would  have  shrunk, 
and  even  an  Earl  of  Stratford  have  hesitated  to  encounter.  They 
would  go  forth  to  the  contest  with  public  opinion  without  arms 
either  offensive  or  defensive.  If  they  had  recourse  to  force  they 
would  find  it  vain — if  they  attempted  gagging  Bills  they  would 
be  derided ;  in  short,  they  would,  in  taking  office,  present  a  most 
miserable  exhibition  of  impotent  ambition,  and  appear  as  if  they 
wished  to  show  to  the  world  a  melancholy  example  of  little  men 
bringing  a  great  empire  to  destruction.  In  this  perilous  hour  he 
would  call  on  the  House  of  Commons  to  remember  the  high  mis 
sion  with  which  they  stood  charged — to  remember  the  important 
privileges  with  which  they  were  invested.  Now,  at  the  hour  when 
a  paltry  faction,  elated  by  a  momentary  triumph,  were,  on  the  one 
hand,  preparing  to  destroy  all  the  hopes  of  the  people,  and  the 
enemies  of  social  order,  on  the  other  hand,  were  rejoicing  in  the 
prospect  of  anarchy  and  confusion — now,  at  this  eventful  hour,  he 
implored  them  to  rise  in  the  grandeur  of  their  hearts,  and  save  a 
Sovereign  misled  by  evil  counsel — save  a  nobility  insensible  to  their 
own  welfare  or  true  interests — save  the  country,  of  which  they  were 
the  guardians,  from  a  disastrous  convulsion,  and  save,  he  would 
say,  the  hive  of  industry,  the  mart  of  the  whole  world,  the  centre 


186  RESIGNATION     OF     MINISTERS. 

of  civilization — from  confusion  and  anarchy.  Their  vote  of  that 
night  would,  he  trusted,  revive  industry,  and  restore  confidence. 
It  would  place  out  of  all  possibility  of  danger  the  public  peace;  it 
would  stay  political  dissensions,  and,  by  averting  the  calamities  with 
which  they  were  threatened,  preserve  the  authority  of  the  law,  and 
uphold  the  Majesty  of  the  Crown. 


187 


ON  SLAVERY  IN  THE  COLONIES  * 
MAY  24,  1832. 

AFTER  the  very  extensive  view  of  this  subject  which  has  been 
taken  by  my  hon.  friend,  I  shall  not  attempt  to  take  a  general 
survey  of  the  subjects  of  Negro  Slavery,  but  merely  confine  myself 
to  the  question  of  the  decrease  of  the  negro  population,  the  only 
point  of  all  my  hon.  friend's  argument  that  the  member  for 
Dumfries  has  ventured  to  dispute.  The  hon.  Member  has  not 
contented  himself  with  charging  my  hon.  friend  with  a  mis-state 
ment,  but  has^actually  gone  the  length  of  accusing  him  of  having 
knowingly  and  wilfully  brought  forward  a  system  which  he  was, 
in  his  own  mind,  convinced  was  incorrect.  I  beg,  however,  to  say, 
that  I  am,  in  my  own  mind,  most  entirely  convinced,  that  the 
argument  of  my  hon.  friend  is  impregnable.  I  first  say,  that  this 
decrease,  which  the  hon.  Gentleman  attributes  to  the  inequality  of 
the  sexes,  is  to  be  found  in  many  islands  where  the  females 
exceeded  the  males  in  number  in  the  year  1817.  I  next  say,  that 
in  St.  Christopher's,  which  is  the  island  selected  by  the  hon. 
Member  himself,  the  women,  in  1817,  exceeded  the  men  in 
numbers.  To  be  sure,  the  hon.  Gentleman  has  talked  about  the 
sexes  approximating  in  1825  and  1826  ;  but  if  this  means  anything 
it  means  that  the  women  diminished  in  number,  for  it  cannot  be 
otherwise  explained.  It  is  true  that,  in  Barbadoes,  the  black 
population  has  increased,  which  circumstance  the  hon.  Gentleman 
may  attribute  to  what  he  calls  the  approximation  of  the  sexes,  if 
he  pleases,  but  which  I  attribute  to  the  cultivation  of  sugar  being 
little  practised  in  that  island.  But,  Sir,  there  are  some  colonies  in 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  xiii.  p.  52-53. 


188  SLAVEKY     IN     THE     COLONIES. 

which  the  number  of  the  men  exceeds  that  of  the  women,  such, 
for  instance,  are  Berbice,  Demerara,  and  Trinidad ;  and  there  we 
find,  not  only  that  there  is  a  total  decrease,  but  even  a  decrease  in 
the  number  of  the  females.  I  say,  that  this  fact  reduces  the 
whole  matter  to  irresistible  demonstration ;  for  if  he  be  correct, 
and  if  the  men  exceed  the  women,  the  worst  that  could  happen 
would  be,  that  the  islands  would  be  in  as  bad  a  situation  as  if  the 
men  were  reduced  to  the  number  of  the  women,  and  the  two 
sexes  made  equal.  But  if  we  look  to  those  colonies,  we  shall  find 
that  there  is  a  decrease  in  the  women  as  well  as  in  the  men ;  and, 
therefore,  again  I  say,  that  it  is  clear  to  demonstration,  that  the 
decrease  in  the  slave-population  cannot  arise  from  this  ill-assort 
ment  of  the  sexes,  as  argued  by  the  lion.  Gentleman.  But  the 
hon.  Gentleman  seems  to  think  that  he  has  done  enough  when  he 
has  made  out,  as  he  supposes,  that  no  decrease  h«ft  taken  place ; 
but  I  contend  that,  not  only  should  there"  be  no  decrease,  but  that 
there  should  be  a  most  rapid  and  striking  increase.  '  The  negro 
population  in  the  West  Indies  are  placed  in  a  situation  admirably 
suited  to  their  nature  and  disposition ;  the  produce  of  the  land  is 
all-prolific — the  bright  and  vivid  sky  is  favourable  to  their  African 
constitutions — they  have  a  great  extent  of  rich  virgin  soil  ready  to 
pour  forth  its  gifts,  with  but  little  labour,  into  their  hands.  This, 
therefore,  ought,  to  them,  to  be  the  golden  age  of  existence ; 
it  ought  to  be  their  age  of  easy  life,  smiling  children,  and  happy 
\tfives ;  it  ought  to  be  their  age  of  high  wages,  full  meals,  light 
work,  early  marriages,  and  numerous  families.  But  is  it  so  ? 
Alas,  Sir,  no ;  a  blight  is  on  them,  and  they  drag  on  a  weary, 
burthensome  existence,  darkened  by  despair,  and  uncheered  by  a 
single  ray  of  hope.  Let  us  look  at  the  result  of  the  same  advan 
tages  in  other  countries.  How  is  it  in  New  South  Wales  ?  There 

O 

the  population  is  made  up  of  convicts  and  prostitutes  ;  and  yet,  in 
spite  of  that  deterioration — in  spite  of  the  inequality  of  the  sexes — 
we  see  that  colony  daily  increasing,  with  every  probability  of  these 


SLAVERY     IN     THE     COLOMES.  189 

convicts  becoming  tlie  patriarchs  of  a  mighty  empire.  We  all 
know  the  origin  of  the  United  States  ;  we  all  know  that  they 
were  originally  peopled  by  the  refuse  of  European  society.  And 
how  is  it  with  them  ?  The  population  there  has  gone  on  swelling 
and  swelling,  like  an  irresistible  torrent ;  the  people  have  multi 
plied,  till  at  length,  in  whole  tribes,  they  have  poured  themselves 
across  the  mountains  of  Alleghany,  the  streams  of  Ohio,  and  the 
plains  of  the  Arkansas.  Year  after  year  the  woods  and  the  forests, 
the  fortresses  of  nature,  have  been  receding  before  the  advancing 
tide  of  human  beings  :  and,  year  after  year,  mankind  has  shown, 
by  its  multiplication,  that,  under  favourable  circumstances,  its 
tendency  is  to  fulfil  the  immutable  law  of  nature.  Why,  then, 
does  not  the  same  rule  apply  to  those  colonies?  Why  is  all 
America  teeming  with  life,  and  why  are  the  West  Indies  becom 
ing  desolate  ?  Sir,  that  our  colonies  should  decrease  in  so  rapid  a 
manner  is  to  me  one  of  the  most  appalling  facts  in  the  history  of 
the  world.  In  the  worst  governed  state  of  Europe — in  the  worst 
managed  condition  of  society — the  people  still  increase.  Look, 
for  instance,  at  the  miserable  population  of  Ireland — at  the 
oppressed  serfs  of  Russia — look  even  at  the  slave-population  of 
America,  or  that  of  our  own  colonies  where  sugar  is  not  cultivated. 
In  the  Bermudas  and  the  Bahamas,  where  no  sugar  is  manufac 
tured,  the  population  goes  on  increasing ;  but  when  we  come  to 
the  sugar  islands,  the  ordinary  law  of  nature  is  inverted,  and,  in 
proportion  to  the  exuberance  of  the  soil,  is  the  curse  of  suffering 
and  of  death.  In  these  islands,  which  are  subject  to  one  eternal 
reign  of  terror,  human  life  flickers  and  goes  out  like  a  candle  in  a 
mephitic  atmosphere.  What  the  Spaniards  did  on  the  continent 
for  gold,  we  are  doing  in  the  islands  for  sugar.  Let  me  remind 
the  House  of  what  Mr.  Fox  said  on  this  subject.  No  one  will 
deny  that,  perhaps,  of  all  our  statesmen,  Mr.  Fox  was  the  most 
ardent  for  political  liberty,  and  yet  his  observation  on  this  ques 
tion  was,  that  all  political  liberty  was  but  as  a  mere  nothing  com- 


100  SLAVERY     IN     THE     COLONIES.  . 

pared  with  personal  liberty.  I  shall  give  ray  best  support  to  the 
Motion  of  my  hon.  friend.  I  shall  do  so,  because  I  feel  that  this 
continued  waste  of  life,  without  example  and  without  parallel,  is 
a  foul  blot  to  this  country,  and  because  I  hope  that  the  adoption 
of  this  Resolution  may  remove  it. 


191 


ON  THE  RUSSIAN-DUTCH  LOAN.* 
JULY  12,  1832. 

HE  could  have  wished  that  the  conduct  to  be  pursued  by  the  gal 
lant  Officer  who  had  last  addressed  the  House,  were  to  be  the 
direct  reverse  to  that  he  had  announced  himself  it  would  be,  and 
that,  on  the  vote  of  censure  upon  the  Government,  he  should  vote 
against  them ;  and  in  that  respecting  the  violation  of  national 
faith,  he  should  be  with  them.  It  was  of  little  importance  by 
whom  the  affairs  of  the  country  were  administered,  but  it  was  of 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  xiv.  p.  293-300. 

NOTE.  Lord  Althorp,  in  moving  for  a  Committee  of  the  House,  thus 
stated  this  question: — The  House  was  aware,  that  in  1815  a  treaty  had 
been  entered  into  between  the  king  of  the  Netherlands,  England,  and  Rus- 
sia,  and  that,  previously,  a  treaty  had  been  concluded  between  Great  Bri 
tain  and  the  king  of  the  Netherlands,  to  take  upon  themselves  the  payment 
of  a  certain  portion  of  a  loan  due  from  the  emperor  of  Russia.  It  was  not 
now  necessary  to  enter  into  that  question — to  inquire  whether  this  arrange 
ment  was  right  or  wrong;  it  was  sufficient  to  consider  if  the  treaty  was 
binding  in  equity  and  honour  upon  this  country.  The  agreement  con 
cluded  was,  that  the  Netherlands  and  Great  Britain  should  undertake  to 
pay  the  interest  of  a  loan  due  from  the  emperor  of  Russia,  at  five  per  cent., 
together  with  a  Sinking  Fund  of  one  per  cent.,  until  the  whole  loan  was 
extinguished.  In  case  of  the  separation  between  Belgium  and  Holland,  it 
was  provided  that  the  obligation  of  the  king  of  the  Netherlands  and  Great 
Britain  ceased.  This  was.  the  letter  of  the  treaty.  The  separation  had 
taken  place.  The  question  was,  if  it  were  such  as  was  contemplated  by  the 
treaty,  and  if  this  country  was  absolved,  in  justice  and  honour,  from  paying 
its  portion  of  the  debt.  He  thought  not.  The  separation  was  not  such  a 
separation  as  was  contemplated  by  the  Treaty,  which  was  exclusively  ono 
effected  by  foreign  force. 


192  RUSSIAN-DUTCH     LOAN. 

the  deepest  moment  that  the  national  honour  should  be  preserved 
inviolate.  Considering,  that  upon  this  subject  hung  the  national 
faith  and  honour  of  England,  he  confessed  it  did  in  the  highest 
degree  astonish  him,  that  hon.  Members  should  think  of  introducing 
topics  which  had  not  the  slightest  relation  to  such  a  subject.  If 
we  were  bound  by  the  solemn  obligations  of  a  mutual  compact,  of 
what  importance  to  us  was  the  general  conduct  of  the  Monarch 
with  whom  that  compact  might  have  been  contracted  ?  Were  we 
at  full  liberty  to  enter  into  as  many  treaties  as  we  please  with  all 
the  Monarch s  of  the  world,  and  yet  keep  faith  only  with  those  who 
proved  to  be  merciful,  liberal,  and  constitutional  rulers  ?  We 
entered  into  treaties  with  the  Burmese  and  Siamese  governments, 
and  wrere  we  to  require  of  them  that  they  should  conform  their 
respective  principles  of  government  to  that  which  we  conceived 
might  be  suitable  and  becoming  as  between  them  and  their  subjects  ? 
The  only  argument  on  that  side  of  the  House  was  the  necessity  of 
keeping  faith  ;  and  how  had  the  hon.  and  gallant  Member  met  that 
argument  ?  Why,  the  hon.  and  gallant  Member  talked  as  if  we 
paid  tribute  to  Russia,  at  the  moment  it  was  attacking  Poland. 
On  what  ground  else  did  he  speak  of  economy  ?  To  exercise 
economy  in  a  case  of  this  description,  the  payment  must  be  op 
tional,  for  he  had  not  yet  heard  anybody  rise  in  the  House  and  say, 
that  economy  was  to  be  preserved  at  the  expense  of  national 
honour.  If  the  common-sense  interpretation  of  the  treaty  called 
upon  this  country  for  its  execution,  the  hon.  and  gallant  Member 
might  as  well  call  upon  them  to  economize  by  a  reduction  of  the 
Three  per  Cents,  or  a  non-pa}  men  t  of  Exchequer  Bills.  The  question 
which  they  were  then  engaged  in  debating,  naturally  divided  itself 
into  two  parts.  The  first  was,  whether  or  not  the  country  was 
bound,  by  the  most  obvious  principles  of  public  faith,  to  continue 
these  payments  ;  secondly,  did  Government  act  illegally  in  continu 
ing  them  without  obtaining  a  new  Act  of  Parliament  for  the  pur 
pose  ?  All  the  hon.  Members  who  spoke  upon  the  other  side,  pro 


RUSSIAN-DUTCH     LOAN.  193 

fessed  to  pursue  the  object  of  keeping  these  questions  perfectly 
distinct ;  and  yet  it  strangely  enough  happened,  that  there  was  not 
one  amongst  them  who  did  not  mix  both  these  topics ;  and  that 
confusion  of  those  questions  ^as  strikingly  conspicuous  where 
Vattel  was  referred  to.  Referring  to  the  Treaty  of  1815,  he  must 
admit,  that  if  they  examined  the  letter  of  that  treaty,  they  would 
find,  that  the  proviso  had  arisen,  and  that  we  were  absolved  from 
the  payment  of  the  debt.  Yes,  according  to  the  letter  of  the  treaty 
we  were  absolved.  According  to  the  letter  we  might  be  absolved  ; 
but  were  they  now  to  be  told  for  the  first  time,  that  the  foreign 
policy  of  this  great  and  renowned  country  was  to  be  governed  by 
such  pettifogging  rules  of  construction  as  were  enunciated  from  the 
other  side?  Principles  such  as  those  were  never  meant,  in  any 
age  or  country,  to  be  applied  to  the  construction  of  compacts 
affecting  the  peace  or  the  fate  of  nations.  Reference,  for  the  pur 
poses  of  present  argument,  had  been  made  to  the  opinions  of 
jurists ;  but  he  knew  enough  of  jurists  to  know,  that  they  were 
the  most  convenient  authorities  that  could  in  any  case  be  referred 
to  for  the  purposes  of  such  a  debate  as  the  present.  In  the  early 
ages  of  the  Church  the  Fathers  were  frequently  quoted,  and  many 
of  them  so  frequently  to  serve  opposite  ends,  that  it  became  a  pro 
verb,  that  you  might  apply  to  the  Fathers  and  obtain  their  author 
ity  in  support  of  either  side  of  almost  any  question.  If  they 
adopted  the  rule  of  literal  construction,  there  must  be  an  end  of  all 
that  had  heretofore  been  considered  the  faith  of  treaties.  Hon. 
Members  on  the  other  side  had  spoken  much* and  emphatically  of 
the  authorities  which  they  had  quoted  in  support  of  their  respect 
ive  opinions ;  but  he  would  call  their  attention  to  one  authority 
which  few  amongst  them  would  be  disposed  to  dispute — he  meant 
the  authority  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington.  One  of  the  great  con 
ventions  to  which  he  was  a  party  bore  date  in  the  same  year  with 
that  which  they  were  then  discussing.  It  related  to  the  entrance 
of  the  Allied  Armies  into  Paris  in  the  year  1815.  By  that  Con- 
VOL.  i.  i) 


194  RUSSIAN-DUTCH     LOAN. 

vention  it  was  strictly  stipulated,  that  all  public  property,  other 
than  military  stores,  should  be  respected  ;  and  it  was  further 
agreed,  that  if  any  doubt  should  arise  respecting  the  construction 
of  any  part  of  that  Convention,  it  should  be  construed  favourably 
to  the  city  of  Paris,  yet  all  the  pictures  of  the  Louvre  were  removed. 
The  people  of  France  held  up  the  letter  of  the  treaty,  and  insisted 
that  the  works  of  art,  of  which  Napoleon  had  despoiled  the  nations 
of  Europe,  should  still  remain  within  the  French  capital ;  but  they 
were  restored  to  their  original  possessors,  and  the  British  nation  and 
all  Europe  approved  the  act,  for  it  was  understood  at  the  time  of 
signing  the  Convention,  that  the  pictures  at  the  Louvre  were  to  be 
restored.  There  was  an  understanding  that  an  exception  had  been 
made  in  respect  of  them  particularly.  He  was  aware  it  might  be 
alleged  that  the  rules  of  construction  required,  that  when  any 
exception  whatever  was  specified,  none  other  could  be  introduced 
or  added ;  but  let  the  House  only  look  to  the  circumstances  of  1815 
— look  to  that  very  Convention  in  which  the  Duke  of  Wellington 
himself  was  concerned.  The  treaties  entered  into  at  the  period 
when  what  was  called  the  Settlement  of  Europe  had  been  effected, 
were  directed  to  objects  which  could  not,  from  their  very  nature,  be 
long  maintained  ;  but  was  the  pecuniary  part  of  those  treaties  to 
be  therefore  set  at  nought  by  a  people  calling  themselves  free, 
liberal,  and  enlightened  ?  The  treaties  of  that  period  could  cer 
tainly  accomplish  no  object  of  a  permanent  kind,  for  these  Govern 
ments  thought  but  of  other  Governments,  and  nothing  of  the 
nations.  In  all  their  partitions  they  looked  to  making  up  compact 
states — they  looked  to  nothing  beyond  the  convenient  frontiers 
which  an  acquaintance  with  the  state  supplied — they  attended  not 
to  the  national  characters,  habits,  feelings,  religion,  morals  of  the 
several  nations  whose  fates  they  presumed  to  decide ;  and  what 
better  proof  could  be  supplied  of  that  than  that  very  plausible  but 
hollow  union  of  Holland  and  Belgium?  But  though,  in  those 
various  points  of  policy,  England  had  failed,  that  'failure,  so  far 


RUSSIAN-DUTCH     LOAN.  195 

from  furnishing  an  argument  in  support  of  breach  of  pecuniary 
faith,  had  quite  an  opposite  tendency.  He  said  nothing  of  the 
policy  of  that  union,  but  it  was  a  great  and  primary  object  of  the 
then  Ministry  of  this  country  to  form  it,  and  it  would  be  an  eternal 
disgrace  to  the  present  Ministers,  who  differed  as  to  that  measure, 
if  they  refused  to  fulfil  the  stipulations  of  their  predecessors.  It 
was  well  known,  that  Russia  was  averse  from  the  union  between 
Holland  and  Belgium ;  and  as  a  means  of  reconciling  the  Court 
of  St.  Petersburg,  the  payment  of  the  Russian  debt  due  in  Holland 
was  guaranteed  by  England  [cries  of  "  wo"].  He  certainly  under 
stood,  and  believed  he  could  show  from  good  authority,  that  Russia 
was  opposed  to  that  union — it  was  stated  at  the  time — he  could 
show  it  had  been  recorded — it  had  been  stated  in  that  House,  that, 
in  1815,  Russia  was  averse  from  the  union  ;  the  Treaty  was  con 
cluded  under  that  view,  and  with  the  express  object  and  intention 
of  inducing  Russia  to  accede  to  it ;  and,  in  order  to  prevent  Russia 
having  an  interest  in  disturbing  that  union,  the  payments  were  made 
to  depend  upon  its  continuance.  The  period  fixed  for  the  deter 
mination  of  those  payments  was  the  dissolution  of  the  union,  not 
because  there  was  any  natural  connexion  between  the  two,  but 
because  it  was  from  Russia  that  danger  was  chiefly  apprehended. 
If  looked  at  in  that  view,  the  treaty  was  intelligible  :  in  any  other 
it  had  no  meaning.  The  hon.  member  for  Thetford  said,  that  these 
payments  were  due,  not  to  Russia  but  to  Holland,  and  that  Eng 
land  could  only  contemplate  paying  them  as  long  as  Holland  had 
the  ability  to  pay  her  share  to  Russia.  But,  if  that  were  the  con 
tingency  of  our  payments,  it  might  have  been  as  well  made  to 
depend  on  the  fall  of  the  next  meteoric  stone,  or  the  drying  up  of 
the  Mediterranean.  If  the  principle  were  that  Russia  should  not 
receive  the  money  in  consequence  of  a  separation  which  she  could 
not  prevent,  or  that  England  should  be  exonerated  from  the  pay 
ment  in  consequence  of  a  separation  which  she  had  promoted,  the 
treaty  in  which  such  a  principle  was  embodied  would  be  the  most 


196  RUSSIAN-DUTCH     LOAN. 

extraordinary  that  ever  was  made.  If  he  understood  the  spirit  of 
those  treaties  rightly,  it  was,  that  if  there  were  the  slightest  reason 
to  believe  that  Russia,  by  direct  or  indirect  means,  had  produced  a 
separation  between  Holland  and  Belgium — if  she  had  been  inclined 
to  lag  behind,  and  to  make  no  exertion  to  prevent  it — if  she  had 
favoured  that  separation — if  she  had  thrown  any  obstruction  in  the 
way  of  any  efforts  we  might  have  been  inclined  to  make  for  the 
purpose  of  preventing  that  separation — then  the  circumstances  con 
templated  by  the  proviso  had  arisen,  and  we  were  relieved  from 
the  payment  of  the  money.  But  was  that  the  present  state  of 
affairs  ?  Was  it  not  notorious,  that  since  1815  the  two  countries 
had,  so  to  speak,  interchanged  their  parts  with  reference  to  this 
question.  In  1815  we  were  for  the  union  and  Russia  was  against 
it ;  in  1831  Russia  was  decidedly  opposed  to  the  separation.  He 
would  not  say  that  England  either  caused,  or  was  desirous  of,  that 
separation.  He  did  not  mean  to  say,  that  England  desired  that 
the  people  of  Belgium  should  be  discontented  with  the  government 
of  Holland,  nor  that  the  Belgians  should  have  risen  against  the 
king  of  Holland.  He  did  say,  however,  that  while  the  king  of 
Holland  continued  to  be,  virtually,  the  king  of  that  country,  hosti 
lities  took  place ;  the  resistance  of  the  Belgians  was  successful ;  and 
Belgium  was  separated,  to  be  again  united,  in  all  probability,  by 
the  European  powers  only.  England  was  desirous  that  the  sepa 
ration  should  be  recognized,  and  it  became  necessary  that  the  new 
independent  state  of  Belgium  should  be  invited  to  enter  into  the 
great  European  family.  In  the  mean  time,  the  circumstances  of 
Russia  had  changed  in  a  directly  opposite  direction.  In  the  first 
place,  as  every  Gentleman  knew,  a  matrimonial  alliance  had,  since 
1815,  very  closely  united  the  Courts  of  Petersburg  and  the  House 
of  Orange ;  but,  above  all,  they  could  not  help  feeling,  that  the 
circumstances  under  which  the  Belgian  revolution  took  place,  were 
such  as  could  not  be  contemplated  with  pleasure  by  a  government, 
distinguished  by  its  jealousy  of  all  popular  institutions  arising  out 


RUSSIAN-DUTCH     LOAN.  197 

of  the  people.  The  forcible  expulsion  of  the  troops  of  the  govern 
ment  and  the  Sovereign,  and  a  democratic  council  being  called  to 
the  government  of  the  country,  the  question  between  a  republic  and 
a  hereditary  monarchy  put  to  the  vote,  and  a  Sovereign  invited  and 
elected  by  the  people  themselves,  on  certain  constitutional  terms — 
these  were  the  characteristics  of  the  Belgian  revolution  ;  and  these 
were  things  which  it  could  not  be  supposed  the  Russian  govern 
ment  would  contemplate  with  pleasure.  It  appeared  to  him,  there 
fore,  that  the  two  countries  had  entirely  changed  their  former 
parts ;  that  this  recognition  was  now  effected  by  the  great  Powers 
of  Europe,  and  that  the  independence  of  the  state  of  Belgium  had 
not  been  effected  in  that  way  which  would  absolve  us  from  our 
obligations.  It  had  been  effected,  not  by  the  interference  of  Russia, 
but  in  conformity  with  the  wishes  of  England,  and  in  spite  of  a 
strong  reluctance  on  the  part  of  Russia.  He  could  not  but  think, 
then,  that  we  were  still  bound  to  fulfil  our  obligations.  There  was 
a  case  he  would  mention  to  the  House,  which  appeared  nearly 
parallel  to  the  present.  He  remembered  to  have  read,  long  ago,  in 
one  of  the  old  jurists — he  could  not  recollect  where,  but  it  was  not 
necessary  to  mention  the  authority,  for  its  great  similarity  to  the 
present  case  would  carry  its  own  argument  along  with  it — the 
writer,  according  to  a  common  practice,  as  many  hon.  Gentlemen 
knew,  with  the  jurists,  put  a  supposed  case.  There  were  two  States 
before  the  invention  of  fire-arms.  Certain  circumstances  induced 
one  State  to  agree  to  pay  the  other  an  annual  subsidy  of  1000 
ducats ;  the  other  state  stipulating  in  return,  that  whenever  the 
state  paying  this  money  was  invaded,  they  would  sAid  to  their 
assistance  1,000  pikemen  ;  and  the  treaty  contained  a  stipulation 
that,  if  this  number  and  the  force  were  not  sent  within  three  days 
after  such  an  invasion,  then  the  payment  of  the  annual  subsidy 
should  cease  and  be  discontinued.  Fire-arms  were  subsequently 
invented,  and  came  into  general  use ;  an  invasion  took  place,  the 
party  invaded  sent  to  the  other  state,  not  for  pikemen,  but  for  mus- 


198  RUSSIAN-DUTCH     LOAN. 

queteers — "For  the  love  of  heaven  send  us  some  musqueteers ; 
pikemen  are  of  no  use  noTi  "  A  battalion  of  musqueteers  imme 
diately  marched  to  the  assistance  of  the  distressed  state,  and  the 
invasion  was  repelled.  Afterwards,  when  the  subsidy  was  de 
manded,  the  answer  was, — "  Look  to  the  terms  of  the  treaty ;  it 
declares  that  you  shall  send  1,000  pikemen,  and  that,  if  you  do  not 
send  such  a  force,  in  number  and  arms,  as  herein  stipulated,  pay 
ment  of  our  annual  subsidy  shall  thereupon  cease."  Why,  what 
would  be  the  language  of  the  Power  cheated  in  this  way  ? — Would 
it  not  say,  "  You  are  taking  advantage  of  your  own  wrong ;  cir 
cumstances  have  changed  ;  military  tactics  have  altered  ;  we  have 
conformed  to  that  alteration  ;  by  doing  so  we  have  saved  you,  and 
this  is  the  return  you  give  us  for  what  we  have  done?"  These 
cases  were  analogous.  In  1815  we  were  desirous  of  the  union  ;  in 
1832  we  were  desirous  to  promote  a  separation;  and  with  what 
face  could  the  British  Ministers  stand  up  and  say  to  the  Russians, 
"  You  did  not  frustrate  my  wishes  with  respect  to  Belgium,  you 
did  not  plunge  all  Europe  into  war  to  support  your  own  views,  and 
I  will  now  take  advantage  of  the  separation  which  I  promoted,  and 
which  you  might  have  prevented,  but  did  not,  in  order  to  evade 
payments  which  literally,  though  not  according  to  the  spirit  of  the 
treaty,  were  made  to  depend  upon  the  continuance  of  the  union." 
He  had  no  difficulty,  then,  upon  grounds  such  as  these,  broadly 
and  roundly  to  assert,  that  his  .Majesty's  Government  had  deserved 
well  of  the  country,  and,  therefore,  he  paid  but  little  attention  to 
the  taunts,  coming  from  the  other  side,  about  the  difficulty  that 
Members  might  have  in  facing  their  constituents,  after  voting  in 
favour  of  a  continuance  of  those  payments.  For  his  part,  he  should 
have  no  difficulty  in  defending  such  a  vote  before  any  constituent 
body  in  the  empire ;  for  the  people  of  England  had  long  shown 
that  they  knew  and  felt  there  was  a  fixed  identity  in  the  state — 
that  public  and  private  morals  were  the  same — that  honesty  was 
the  best  policy — and  they  believed  that  to  pay  what  they  owed 


RUSSIAN-DUTCH     LOAN.  199 

was  the  truest  economy — that  the  state  could  not  be  guilty  of  a 
breach  of  faith  in  one  instance  without  bringing  suspicion  on  all  its 
engagements,  and  thus  reducing  itself  to  a  situation  at  once  dis 
graceful  and  perilous,  putting  to  hazard  that  peace  throughout 
Europe  now  happily  so  long  preserved — a  peace,  in  the  continuance 
of  which  every  artisan,  every  ploughman,  every  shopkeeper,  in  the 
land  knew  that  he  was  deeply  interested ;  and  he  need  not  say, 
that  to  preserve  peace,  public  faith  must  be  maintained  inviolably. 
Upon  these  principles,  Members  of  Parliament  might  go  before  the 
people  of  England — upon  these  principles,  Members  of  Parliament 
might  be  willing  to  act,  and  content  to  suffer. 


200 


ON    THE    AFFAIRS    OF    THE    COUNTRY  * 

FEBRUARY    6,    1833. 

On   the  Address  in  Answer  to   the  King's  Speech — The  Irish 
Question. 

LAST  night  he  had  formed  the  intention  of  not  taking  part  in  the 
present  debate  ;  but  circumstances  which  had  this  evening  arisen 
determined  him  to  adopt  an  opposite  course,  and  to  say  a  few 
words  in  reply  to  the  attack  which  had  been  made  upon  him  by 
his  hou.  friend,  the  member  for  Lincoln  [Sir  E.  L.  Bulwer]  ;  at 
the  same  time  that  he  felt  that  he  should  quite  as  well  discharge 
the  duty  which  he  owed  to  himself,  and  much  better  consult  what 
was  due  to  the  House,  by  postponing  the  defence  of  his  own  per 
sonal  consistency  until  after  he  had  more  directly  addressed  him 
self  to  the  question  which  mainly  occupied  the  attention  of  the 
House.  His  hon.  friend,  so  ingenious  in  the  construction  of  an 
argument,  and  so  successful  in  making  a  point,  was  sometimes  not 
always  aware  of  the  effect  of  the  words  which  he  used.  His  hon. 
friend  told  the  House  that  the  Government  proposed  coercion, 
while  the  hon.  and  learned  member  for  Dublin  [O'Connell]  recom 
mended  redress.  When  called  upon  to  choose  between  both,  the 
hon.  member  for  Lincoln  declared  that  he  could  not  hesitate ;  but 
he  was  sure  that,  upon  reflection,  his  hon.  friend  would  see  that  he 
and  the  hon.  and  learned  member  for  Dublin  did  not  attach  the 
same  meaning  to  the  words  which  the  one  was  the  first  to  use, 
and  that  the  other  had  but  too  readily  adopted.  The  hon.  and 
learned  member  for  Dublin  meant  Repeal  of  the  Union — to  that 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  xv.  p.  250-264. 


AFFAIRS     OF     THE     COUNTRY.  201 

his  hon.  friend  was  averse.  When  they  were  told  that  the  ques 
tion  of  the  Union  of  Ireland  was  not  to  be  sneered  down  till  after 
the  most  complete  investigation,  till  after  the  fullest  inquiry,  and 
after  the  gravest  debate,  he  could  not  help  putting  the  question, 
whose  fault  was  it  that  they  had  no  full  and  formal  debate  upon 
the  subject  ?  Why  was  it  that  the  question  had  not  been  fully 
agitated  ?  Had  not  his  Majesty's  Government  given  the  challenge, 
and  was  it  not  fully  in  the  recollection  of  the  House,  that  the  hon. 
and  learned  member  for  Dublin  had  addressed  them  for  two  or 
three  hours — he  forgot  how  long,  for  no  one  could  consider  the 
time  long  while  that  Gentleman  continued  speaking ;  but  had  he 
not  spoken  for  two  or  three  hours,  without  opening  the  question 
of  the  Union  in  a  manner  that  could  be  grappled  with,  or  indeed 
fairly  encountered  at  all  ?  This  was  the  more  remarkable,  as  that 
hon.  and  learned  Member  had  last  night  placed  fourteen  notices 
on  the  book,  and  not  one  of  them  related  to  the  subject  of  the 
Legislative  Union  between  Great  Britain  and  Ireland.  The  hon. 
and  learned  Member  had  permitted  judgment  to  go  against  him 
by  default.  Hon.  Members  at  that  side  of  the  House  (the  Minis 
terial)  had  called  upon  the  hon.  and  learned  Member  to  proceed, 
but  he  had  declined  the  invitation — he  shrunk  back — he  skulked 
away  from  the  opportunity  of  giving  effect  in  that  House  to  the 
doctrines  which  he  had  promulgated  elsewhere  with  so  much  vehe 
mence,  and  accompanied  with  so  much  of  personal  invective  and 
objurgation.  If  ever  there  was  an  occasion  which  naturally  led  to 
a  discussion  of  the  question  of  Repeal,  it  was  tho  Amendment 
moved  by  the  hon.  and  learned  Member ;  but  he  had  not  only 
then  neglected  to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunity  offered  to 
him,  but  instead  of  making  any  approach  towards  joining  issue 
upon  it,  he  had  delivered  one  of  the  most  evasive  speeches  that 
had  ever  been  uttered  within  the  walls  of  Parliament.  From  the 
beginning  to  the  end  he  had  most  carefully  and  studiously  avoided 
meeting  the  question  of  Repeal.  He  should  be  the  last  man  in 

9* 


202  AFFAIRS  OF  THE  COUNTRY. 

the  world  to  deny  that  that  speech  was  very  able  and  eloquent, 
but  though  the  most  ample  opportunity  had  been  afforded  the 
hon.  and  learned  Member  by  the  occasion  which  then  presented 
itself,  to  press  upon  the  attention  of  the  House  the  question  of 
Repeal ;  yet  he  had  cautiously  abstained  from  improving  that 
opportunity,  and  had  not  accepted  the  challenge  of  those  who 
stood  strong  in  their  defence  of  the  Legislative  Union,  the  Repeal 
of  which  was  supposed  by  the  hon.  and  learned  member  for  Dub 
lin  to  be  the  panacea  for  all  the  evils  with  which  Ireland  was 
afflicted.  It  was  not  for  lack  of  argument  that  Ministers  did  not 
discuss  the  Question.  They  were  strong  in  irresistible  arguments, 
and  feared  not  on  any  occasion  to  meet  the  advocates  of  Repeal. 
They  were  told,  indeed,  to  wait  till  they  had  examined  the  petitions 
of  the  Irish  people ;  but  no  Gentleman  who  took  an  interest  in 
the  affairs  of  the  country  had  neglected  already  to  make  himself 
master  of  it  in  all  its  bearings.  He  was  prepared  to  discuss  the 
question  of  Repeal  inch  by  inch,  and  to  show,  that  so  far  from 
being  likely  to  remedy  the  social  and  political  grievances  of  Ireland, 
it  would  have  the  effect  of  aggravating  every  one  of  the  causes  of 
discontent  at  present  in  operation.  If  the  advocates  of  Repeal 
wished  to  separate  the  Crowns  of  England  and  Ireland — if  they 
desired  to  establish  an  Hibernian  Republic,  their  arguments  might 
be  considered  rational  and  consistent ;  but  the  hon.  and  learned 
Gentleman  required  a  separation  of  the  Legislatures  of  the  two 
countries,  and  the  identity  of  their  Crowns.  The  hon.  and  learned 
Member  required  two  independent  Legislatures  (for  if  the  Legisla 
tures  were  not  independent,  the  separation  was  a  mockery),  and 
one  Executive.  Could  it  be  then  that  a  mind  so  acute  and 
informed  as  his,  could  be  unconscious  that  such  conclusions  were 
opposed  to  the  first  principles  of  the  science  of  Government  ? 
When  a  Union  of  the  Crowns  was  spoken  of,  he  took  it  for  granted 
that  ho  such  Union  was  meant  as  that  which  subsisted  between 
Great  Britain  and  Hanover,  in  which  the  Crown  appertained  to 


AFFAIRS     OF     THE     COUNTRY.  203 

the  same  Royal  Personage,  but  in  which  the  Ministers  by  whom 
the  Executive  authority  was  actually  exercised  were  perfectly  dis 
tinct  :  a  Union  of  that  sort,  so  far  as  he  knew,  had  never  been 
advocated ;  and  he  entertained  not  the  slightest  doubt,  that  could 
such  a  Union  ever  be  called  into  existence,  the  first  question  asked 
would  be,  what  was  the  use  of  continuing  it — what  purpose  could 
it  serve  to  either  country  ?  Let  the  House  only  contemplate  for  a 
moment  what  was  the  nature  of  the  Union  subsisting  between  this 
country  and  Hanover.  Hanover  was  a  member  of  the  Germanic 
Diet,  and  might  send  its  contingency  to  the  aid  of  a  war  carried 
on  against  the  Allies  of  England,  or  against  England  herself. 
Did  they  contemplate  any  Union  of  that  sort  for  Ireland  with  this 
country  ?  If  they  did,  let  them  say  so  at  once — let  them  declare 
candidly,  did  they,  or  did  they  not,  desire  two  Legislatures  and 
one  Executive,  connected  as  England  and  Hanover  were,  -for  he 
professed  himself  unable  to  understand,  and  he  felt  assured,  from 
the  nature  of  the  proposition,  that  no  man  in  his  senses  could 
imagine  that  he  understood  any  other  scheme  by  which  the  busi 
ness  of  Government  in  both  countries  could  be  carried  on  with 
the  Legislatures  separated  and  the  Crown  united.  But  the  hon. 
and  learned  Member  said,  that  he  thought  it  would  be  a  great 
calamity  if  the  two  countries  were  to  be  separated,  and  were  not  to 
have  the  same  King,  meaning  obviously,  the  same  Executive  Govern 
ment.  The  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman  then  meant  simply  by 
the  Repeal  of  the  Union,  two  independent  Legislatures  under  one 
Executive.  Was  such  a  state  of  things  possible  ?  If  the  Execu 
tive  Power  were  really  quite  distinct  from  the  Legislative  Power, 
they  might  easily  have  two  Legislatures  under  one  Executive  just 
as  they  had  two  Chancellors,  and  two  Courts  of  King's  Bench. 
But  be  the  theory  of  the  Constitution  what  it  might,  no  man 
acquainted  with  the  working  of  that  Constitution,  could  for  a 
moment  imagine  a  total  separation  of  the  Legislative  from  the 
Executive  ?  It  would  be  a  political  anomaly,  or  rather  a  political 


204  AFFAIRS     OF     THE     COUNTRY. 

impossibility.  For  himself  he  was  disposed  to  rest  the  question 
upon  this  issue — Had  or  had  not  the  Legislature  a  most  powerful 
influence  upon  the  Executive  ?  Could  the  Crown  pursue  war,  or 
conclude  peace,  without  the  consent,  and  sanction,  and  support  of 
the  Legislature  ?  War,  peace,  and  all  the  functions  of  the  Execu 
tive,  were,  in  some  degree,  dependent  upon  the  Legislature,  and 
the  Legislature  exerted  a  considerable  share  of  power  in'  every 
part  of  the  duties  assigned  to  the  Executive.  The  King  might 
choose  his  own  Ministers;  but  he  could  not  maintain  them  in 
office  after  Parliament  had  become  hostile  to  them.  The  conduct 
of  negotiations  was  intrusted  to  the  Monarch,  he  appointed  Ambas 
sadors  ;  but  the  King  could  not  pursue  any  line  of  foreign  policy 
in  opposition  to  the  views  and  feelings  of  the  Parliament.  The 
Repealers  might,  therefore,  be  refuted  out  of  their  own  mouths. 
They  -said,  that  the  Executive  Power  ought  to  be  one :  but  the 
Legislature  had  a  share  of  Executive  Power.  Therefore,  by  the 
confession  of  the  Repealers  themselves,  the  Legislature  ought  to  be 
one.  Now  the  futility  of  such  an  opinion  could  be  at  once 
exposed  by  a  most  simple,  obvious,  and  familiar  illustration.  Sup 
pose  the  one  Legislature  voted  an  Address  in  favour  of  peace,  and 
the  other  declared  for  war,  what  would  ensue  ?  Did  they  suppose 
that  there  were  to  be  at  all  foreign  states  with  which  we  main 
tained  diplomatic  relations  two  Ambassadors — one  for  England 
and  the  other  for  Ireland  ?  And  yet  it  was  impossible  to  avoid 
arriving  at  that  conclusion  if  a  distinction  were  established  between 
the  Legislative,  and  therefore,  of  necessity,  between  the  Executive 
powers  of  the  two  countries.  And  what  would  be  the  next  step  ? 
Negotiations  might  be  carried  on  with  foreign  states,  and  the  Legis 
lature  of  this  country  express  the  highest  approbation  of  the  man 
ner  in  which  they  might  have  been  conducted — might  declare  its 
confidence  in,  and  offer  its  thanks  to  the  diplomatic  agent  employed  ; 
while  the  Legislature  of  the  other  State  might  resolve  upon  his 
impeachment.  Not  ten — not  five  years  would  elapse  before  occa- 


AFFAIRS     OF     THE     COUNTRY.  205 

sions  must  present  themselves,  out  of  which  causes  of  irreconcile- 
able  dispute  must  arise.  Not  one  year  could  the  two  countries 
exist  under  the  same  Imperial  Executive.  The  supposition  was 
monstrous  and  absurd,  and  all  history  showed  that  the  plan  would 
be  utterly  impracticable.  It  had  been  supposed  that  parallel  cases 
should  be  referred  to ;  but  when  those  came  to  be  examined,  it 
would,  in  every  instance,  be  seen,  that  a  similarity  of  circumstances 
did  not  prevail ;  and  that  where  they  did,  the  case  but  strength 
ened  the  position  for  which  he  was  contending.  Take  the  case  of 
Ireland  herself  during  the  short  period  in  which  she  possessed  an 
independent  Parliament.  It  was  only  during  eighteen  years  that 
there  did  exist  in  the  British  empire  two  independent  and  co-equal 
Legislatures ;  and  though  the  circumstances  under  which  they  so 
existed  rendered  collision  exceedingly  difficult — for  during  the 
whole  of  that  period,  as  was  well  known  to  all  who  heard  him, 
the  Irish  Houses  were  managed  by  that  Parliamentary  corruption 
which  no  one  could  desire  to  see  renewed,  and  the  Irish  people 
were  overawed  by  a  large  military  force — yet,  for  all  that,  so  filled 
was  the  system  with  the  seeds  of  disunion,  that  six  years  did  not 
elapse  from  the  declaration  of  independence  till  occasion  for  a  dif 
ference  of  opinion  arose.  In  the  year  1788,  George  3rd  was 
incapacitated  by  illness  from  the  exercise  of  the  powers  appertain 
ing  to  the  Kingly  office,  and  according  to  the  Constitution,  the 
privilege  devolved  upon  Parliament  of  making  provision  for  the 
discharge  of  those  high  and  important  functions.  What  occurred  ? 
The  Parliament  of  England  offered  the  Regency  to  the  Prince  of 
Wales  with  extensive  restrictions — the  Parliament  of  Ireland  offered 
him  the  same  powers  without  any  restrictions  whatever.  Surely 
if  they  possessed  the  right  and  the  power  to  make  such  offer 
respecting  the  conditions  upon  which  the  Royal  functions  were  to 
be  exercised,  they  possessed  as  fully  and  could  as  freely  exercise 
the  privilege  of  selecting  the  individual  to  whom  the  appointment 
might  be  offered,  and  with  quite  as  strong  a  claim  of  right  consti- 


206  AFFAIRS  OF  THE  COUNTRY. 

tute  the  Duke  of  York  Regent,  as  extend  the  powers  of  the  office 
when  vested  in  the  Prince  of  Wales.  They  might  have  chosen 
their  own  Regent,  and  might  have  invested  him  with  such  powers 
as  they  thought  proper ;  and  had  George  3rd  continued  for  the 
remainder  of  his  life  incapable  of  the  duties  of  Monarch,  England 
and  Ireland  would  have  been  for  thirty-two  years  with  a  divided 
Executive,  without  departing  one  iota  from  the  principles  of  the 
Constitution.  This  would  have  been  the  unavoidable  consequence  ; 
yet  it  was  loudly  deprecated  in  the  very  same  breath  which  sent 
forth  a  warm  recommendation  to  call  into  life  and  activity  the 
causes  from  which  that  consequence  must  necessarily  flow.  Were 
he  to  pursue  the  argument  further,  he  could  occupy  the  attention 
of  the  House  with  nothing  more  than  reciting  such  a  series  of 
monstrous  results,  as  certainly  never  before  ensued,  and  which 
were  probably  never  yet  contemplated  in  reference  to  any  public 
measure.  Not  only  was  all  argument  opposed  to  it  a  priori,  but 
all  history  would  show  the  scheme  to  be  founded  upon  a  gross 
and  pernicious  fallacy.  They  might  have  again  a  legislature  in 
Dublin  and  in  London  as  they  had  before  1782,  but  all  that  tho 
former  would  have  to  do,  would  be  to  obey  the  decrees  of  tho 
latter  under  a  mock  form  of  independence.  He  admitted  that  some 
cases  bore  the  appearances  of  divided  legislatures  and  united 
Crowns,  but  those  appearances  were  to  the  utmost  degree  decep 
tive,  and  the  more  closely  they  were  examined  the  more  clearly 
did  that  character  develope  itself.  Such  was  the  case,  for  example, 
in  the  co-existent  parliaments  of  France,  Burgundy,  and  Brittany ; 
and,  equally  so,  in  those  mockeries  of  the  names  of  Parliament 
with  which  the  House  of  Austria  still  amused  the  people  of  Hun 
gary  and  the  Tyrol.  In  all  these  cases  there  was  no  such  thing  as 
an  independent  legislature  ;  all  the  power  lay  in  the  hands  of  the 
Crown  ;  the  Parliament  was  a  mere  pageant — a  mockery — or 
means  of  riveting  the  fetters  of  the  conquered.  In  fact,  if  history 
had  one  lesson  which  stood  out  more  emphatically  than  another, 


AFFAIRS  OF  THE  COUNTRY.  207 

— it  was  that  which,  indeed,  reason  would  strike  out  for  itself,  the 
impossibility  of  two  independent  legislatures  co-existing  under  the 
same  executive  head.  It  was  not  easy  to  get  at  the  precise  plan 
of  Repeal  contemplated  by  the  learned  Member  for  Dublin.  He 
had  not  himself  developed  it,  and  it  was  only  to  be  guessed  at  by 
some  partial  revelations.  Among  a  number  of  statements  of  the 
learned  Gentleman  on  this  head,  which  he  had  read  in  the  public 
Journals,  the  most  precise  plan  was  one  proposing  a  kind  of  federal 
union  of  a  local  legislature  sitting  in  Dublin,  with  an  imperial 
legislature  in  London.  But  did  the  learned  Gentleman  deceive 
himself  so  much  as  to  suppose,  that  by  this  plan  he  evaded  the 
difficulties  of  two  independent  legislatures  ?  Supposing,  as  in  the 
latter  case,  that  there  should  spring  up  some  difference  of  opinion 
or  conduct  between  the  two  legislatures — the  domestic  and  the 
imperial — who  was  to  decide  between  them  ?  Where  was  the 
paramount  authority  to  declare,  "  you  are  right,"  and  "  you  arc 
wrong  ;  you  therefore  must  yield,  &c. ;"  for  on  the  supposition  of 
the  learned  Gentleman,  they  were  both  to  be  independent  and 
supreme.  A  dispute  between  the  House  of  Commons  and  the 
House  of  Lords  was  bad  enough ;  yet  in  that  case  the  Crown  pos 
sessed  a  constitutional  power,  which  in  practice  had  prevented 
collisions  between  the  hereditary  and  the  representative  branches 
of  the  Legislature  ;  it  could  dissolve  the  one, — it  could  add  to  the 
numbers  of  the  other.  They  all  knew  that  both  expedients  were 
had  recourse  to  in  the  reign  of  Anne,  in  17 04  and  1712  ;  in  the  one 
instance  (the  Aylesbury  affair)  the  Queen  dissolved  the  House  of  - 
Commons  ;  in  the  other  (the  question  of  the  peace  of  Utrecht)  she 
created  a  number  of  Peers.  But  who  was  to  arbitrate  between 
two  independent  Legislatures  elected  by  two  different  nations  ?  The 
federal  union  of  a  domestic  and  an  imperial  legislature,  did  not 
meet  the  difficulty  which,  indeed,  the  greatest  federal  republic  in 
the  world  was  at  this  moment  exhibiting  on  a  large  scale.  That 
republic — the  most  famed  in  the  world — agreed  to  its  present 


208  AFFAIRS     OF     THE     COUNTRY. 

constitution  in  a  great  convention,  over  which  the  genius  of 
"Washington  presided,  and  in  which  the  most  able  statesmen  of 
the  day  assisted.  At  that  memorable  convention,  the  different 
states  of  which  the  republic  was  composed  agreed  to  a  form  of 
union,  similar  to  that  contemplated  by  the  hon.  and  learned  Gen 
tleman  ;  and  yet,  after  more  than  half  a  century's  trial,  the  consti 
tution  of  the  United  States  had  found  no  other  arbiter  between  a 
local'  and  an  imperial  legislature,  but  physical  force.  The  hon. 
and  learned  gentleman's  plan  for  separating  the  legislatures  of  the 
two  countries,  and  at  the  same  time  continuing  the  union  of  the 
Crowns,  was,  therefore,  worse  than  a  complete  and  total  separa 
tion — that  complete  and  total  separation  which  the  hon.  and 
learned  Gentleman  said  he  should  regard  as  a  calamity ;  but  which 
would  be  no  calamity  compared  with  that  which  he  proposed  to 
put  upon  us.  If,  on  a  fair  trial,  it  were  found  that  the  two  coun 
tries  could  not  be  made  to  co-exist  in  the  same  empire — could  not 
be  made  harmoniously  to  combine  in  one  course  of  mutual  support 
and  prosperity — in  God's  name  let  them -be  wholly  separated.  He 
did  not  wish  to  see  them,  like  those  strange  twin  beings  lately 
exhibited  in  this  city,  connected  by  an  unnatural  tie,  which  made 
each  the  plague  of  the  existence  of  the  other — each  in  the  other's 
way  ;  more  slow  of  motion,  because  they  had  more  legs ;  more 
helpless,  because  they  had  more  hands  ;  partaking  of  no  common 
aliment,  sympathizing  only  in  disease  and  helplessness,  and  each 
being  perpetually  subject  to  perish  by  the  dissolution  of  the  other. 
And,  now,  in  what  character  was  it  that  the  hon.  and  learned  Gen 
tleman  came  forward?  He  said  that  he  appeared  as  the  last 
advocate  of  his  own  country — as  the  man  who  stood  between  the 
empire  and  civil  war.  Bt,t  if  they  admitted  that  the  Repeal  of 
the  Union  was  to  save  us  fiom  this  calamity,  what  argument  had 
the  hon.  and  learned  Member  advanced  in  favour  of  that  proposi 
tion  ?  He  had  recounted  many  grievances  ;  and  he  was  not  the 
man  to  apeak  lightly  of  those  grievances— they  were,  undoubtedly, 


AFFAIRS     OF     THE     COUNTRY.  209 

numerous, .extensive,  and  of  long  standing;  but  when  he  heard 
the  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman  go  through  that  melancholy  list 
of  evils,  many  of  which,  unquestionably,  required  a  speedy  remedy 
— a  remedy  which  he  trusted  soon  to  see  applied — (at  least  so  far 
as  any  remedy  might  be  within  the  gift  of  the  Legislature),  when 
he  heard  the  hon.  and  learned  gentleman  go  through  that  melan 
choly  list,  he  detected  one  alone  which,  as  it  seemed  to  him,  the 
Repeal  of  the  Union  could,  even  in  the  hon.  and  learned  Gentle 
man's  own  opinion,  tend  to  remove.  What  was  the  nature  of  the 
evils  to  which  the  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman  alluded — were  they 
such  as  did  not  exist  previous  to  the  Union  ?  Certainly  not ;  and 
he  had  yet  to  learn  that  the  Repeal  of  the  Union  would  be  a 
remedy  for  grievances  which  existed  long  before  that  Union  took 
place,  and  which  grievances,  he  would  confidently  venture  to  add, 
a  Repeal  of  that  Union  would  but  aggravate.  The  learned  Gen 
tleman,  in  his  post  hoc  and  propter  hoc  distinctions,  seemed  to 
reverse  the  well-known  logic  of  the  Goodwin  Sands  versus  Tenter- 
den  Steeple.  The  steeple  was  the  cause  of  the  sands,  said  the  rustic 
logicians,  because  it  existed  before  they  encroached  upon  the  coast ; 
but  the  learned  Gentleman  reversed  the  reasoning,  and  said, 
because  the  Union  took  place  long  after  the  existence  of  certain 
grievances,  therefore  it  must  be  the  cause  of  them.  Some  of  the 
grievances  which  he  thus  ascribed  to  the  Act  of  Union  were  not 
peculiar  to  Ireland,  or  to  any  form  of  government.  For  what  did 
they  reform  the  House  of  Commons  ?  Was  it  not  on  the  same 
grounds  upon  which  the  hon.  and  learned  Member  now  came  for 
ward  and  asked  for  a  Repeal  of  the  Union  ?  Was  not  the  removal 
of  many  of  them — undeserving  sinecurists,  political  judges,  cor 
rupt  magistrates,  for  example — one  of  the  great  objects  of  the 
Reform  Bill  ?  Surely,  the  removal  of  the  remaining  Irish  griev 
ances  did  not  in  all  fairness  require  a  domestic  legislature  in  Ireland. 
Besides,  see  to  what  me  argument  tended ;  if  local  abuses  in 
Ireland  required  a  local  legislature  to  remedy  them,  why  should 


210  AFFAIRS     OF     THE     COUNTRY. 

not  every  other  part  of  the  empire,  also  complaining  of  grievances, 
be  allowed  its  domestic  legislature  ?  They  all  remembered  what 
complaints  were  made  a  few  years  since  with  respect  to  the  Welsh 
Judges  ;  but  did  anybody,  therefore,  dream  that  Wales  should  be 
separated  from  England,  and  that  it  should  have  a  domestic  legis 
lature  of  its  own  ?  In  the  same  way  he  never  heard  it  said  that  a 
domestic  legislature  should  be  established  in  Cornwall  because 
there  were  several  local  grievances  in  that  county  which  required 
a  remedy.  Nay,  to  come  nearer  his  political  home — Leeds — he 
could  assure  the  House,  that  a  large  majority  of  his  constituents 
complained  loudly  of  the  grievances  imposed  upon  them  by  its 
corporation ;  but  not  a  hint  had  been  thrown  out  that  the  best 
remedy  would  be  the  establishing  a  nice  federal  independent 
domestic  legislature  in  the  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire.  And  yet, 
if  the  learned  Gentleman's  project  were  good  for  anything,  it  must 
be  capable  of  being  applied  to  Wales,  and  Cornwall,  and  York 
shire,  and  every  county  in  England,  as  well  as  to  Ireland.  He 
would  go  further  (perhaps  the  learned  Gentleman  would  say  much 
further),  and  maintain  that  the  clearest  ground  which  could  be 
guessed  at,  as  the  basis  of  his  repeal  scheme,  would  apply  a  for 
tiori  to  a  separation  of  the  legislatures  of  the  north  and  the  south 
of  Ireland.  If  a  rooted  difference  of  religion,  and  the  existence  of 
the  worst  consequences  of  that  difference,  would  justify  the  separa 
tion  of  the  English  and  Irish  legislatures,  the  same  difference,  and, 
still  more,  the  same  baleful  consequences,  would  warrant  the  sepa 
ration  of  Protestant  Ulster  from  Catholic  Munster.  If,  as  the 
learned  gentleman  had  often  declared,  it  was  impossible  for  a 
Catholic  prosecutor  or  prosecuted  to  obtain  even  the  semblance  of 
justice  from  an  Orange  juryman,  and  that  such  a  state  of  things 
would  be  a  justification  of  a  Repeal  of  the  Legislative  Union 
between  England  and  Ireland  (though  the  fact  was  notorious  that 
no  such  conduct  would,  under  any  circumstances,  be  manifested 
towards  any  British  subject  in  England),  why  then  the  same  rea- 


AFFAIRS     OF     THE     COUNTRY.  211 

soning,  that  only  a  domestic  legislature  could  remedy  a  domestic 
grievance,  would  in  a  tenfold  degree  apply  in  favour  of  one 
domestic  legislature  in  Dublin,  and  another  in  Deny,  or  some 
other  large  town  in  the  north  of  Ireland.  All  the  arguments 
which  the  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman  had  advanced  in  favour  of 
his  favourite  scheme  of  Repeal  seemed  invalid.  In  making  these 
observations,  he  had,  in  a  great  measure,  vindicated  himself  from 
the  charge  of  inconsistency  brought  against  him  by  his  hon. 
friend,  the  member  for  Lincoln.  It  was  very  easy  for  hon.  Gentle 
men  to  come  forward  with  a  speech  made  by  another,  upon  the 
Reform  Bill,  to  read  a  few  sentences  from  it,  and  to  say  :  "  this 
binds  you  to  support  a  Repeal  of  the  Union."  It  was  hardly  fair 
to  take  such  a  course,  because  every  expression  uttered  in  the 
House  ought  to  be  construed  only  in  reference  to  the  occasion  upon 
which  it  had  been  used.  No  man  knew  better  than  a  practised 
writer  like  the  hon.  member  for  Lincoln,  that  the  whole  force  or 
wisdom  of  words  depended  on  their  application  ;  that  nothing  was 
easier  than  to  write  a  theory  on  either  side  of  a  subject,  either  all 
panegyric  or  all  vituperation ;  and  that  the  wisdom  or  folly  of  the 
theory  depended  solely  on  its  application.  For  example,  were  he 
to  defend  Thistlewood  in  the  tone  and  language  which  he  should, 
or  at  least  ought  to  employ,  if  he  were  the  advocate  of  a  Lord 
William  Russell,  or  an  Algernon  Sydney,  it  would  be  plain  that 
he  should  be  employing  words,  to  say  the  least,  inappositely.  The 
whole  test  of  the  propriety  is  the  application — the  appositeness  of 
the  expressions  at  the  time  ;  and  by  these  considerations  he  ought, 
in  fairness,  to  have  been  judged  by  his  hon.  friend,  the  member 
for  Lincoln.  He  believed  the  Reform  Bill  to  be  a  remedy  which 
might  be  easily  applied  for  the  removal  of  the  greater  portion  of 
the  evils  complained  of  by  the  hon.  and  learned  member  for 
Dublin.  He  believed  that  the  project  for  the  Repeal  of  the  Union 
was  a  mere  delusion ;  nay  more,  he  believed  that,  in  the  manner 
in  which  it  was  proposed,  it  was  an  impossibility.  He  believed 


212  AFFAIRS  OF  THE  COUNTRY. 

also  that  if  it  were  practicable,  tliere  was  no  part  of  the  empire  to 
which  it  would  be  so  fatally  ruinous  as  to  Ireland  itself.  The 
expressions  which  he  used  on  the  occasion  alluded  to  by  the  hon. 
member  for  Lincoln,  and  which  he  did  not  shrink  from,  imputed 
much,  perhaps  nine-tenths,  of  the  grievances  and  ills  which 
afflicted  the  country  previous  to  the  passing  of  the  Reform  Bill, 
to  the  misgovernment  consequent  upon  a  withholding  of  that 
beneficial  measure.  But  it  should  be  recollected,  in  applying  his 
language  to  the  case  of  Ireland,  that  he  did  not,  therefore,  argue 
that  the  breaches  of  the  law  to  which  these  consequences  of  mis- 
government  led,  should  go  unpunished.  When  he  said  that  in 
his  mind  the  burnings  and  destruction  of  agricultural  produce, 
which  disgraced  so  many  portions  of  England,  were  mainly  owing 
to  the  then  Ministers  turning  a  deaf  ear  to  the  people's  cry  for 
Reform,  he  did  not  at  the  same  time  contend,  that  the  incendiaries 
and  the  lawless  disturbers  of  social  order  should  not  be  hanged  or 
otherwise  punished.  Then,  though  he  earnestly  deplored  the 
probable  results  of  rejecting  the  Reform  Bill,  he  did  not  assert 
that  the  outrages  and  excesses  committed  under  the  name  of  that 
rejection  should  pass  with  impunity — that  for  the  Bristol  rioters, 
for  example,  the  sword  of  justice  should  not  be  unsheathed — but 
he  would  defend  the  consistency  of  his  language,  on  that  and  the 
present  occasion,  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  learned  member  for 
Dublin  himself.  That  learned  Gentleman  told  the  House  yester 
day,  that  the  coercers  might  goad  by  their  harsh  policy,  some  of 
the  least  prudent,  least  thinking  multitude,  into  a  general  war 
against  property  and  order,  but  that  then  he  should  be  found  in  the 
ranks  of  the  Executive  in  resisting  the  outrages,  and  punishing 
the  guilty.  The  learned  Gentleman,  it  was  true,  said  that  he 
would  thus  join  the  ranks  of  the  Government  as  the  lesser  of  two 
great  evils — that  while  he  aided  it,  he  would  abuse  and  execrate  it 
as  the  parent  source  of  all  the  mischief — but  still  he  would  be  found 
in  it*  ranks.  If,  therefore,  the  learned  Gentleman  did  not  deem 


AFFAIRS     OF     THE     COUNTRY.  213 

himself  inconsistent,  when  aiding  in  the  case  he  put  to  check  the 
lawless  consequences  of  grievances  which  he  called  upon  the 
Houes  to  remedy,  he  was  at  least  as  little  obnoxious  to  a  similar 
charge  by  his  hon.  friend,  the  member  for  Lincoln.  The  hon. 
Gentleman  and  he  agreed  in  ascribing  to  misgoverninent  the  real 
parentage  of  the  grievances  which  had  led,  or  might  lead,  to  acts 
inconsistent  with  social  order ;  and  both  of  them  agreed,  that 
while  the  grievances  should  be  remedied,  the  violation  of  the  law 
should  be  punished.  The  only  difference  between  them  was  one 
of  time — that  was,  when  the  law  should  be  enforced  against  its 
transgressors.  He  agreed  with  the  learned  Gentleman,  that  Ireland 
presented  many  grievances  which  demanded  a  remedy  from  the 
Legislature.  He,  for  one,  would  do  his  best  to  redress  those 
grievances.  He  would  go  further,  and  declare  he  would  not  belong, 
for  a  moment,  to  any  Government  to  which  that  redress  should  be 
a  matter  of  unnecessary  delay.  But  because  he  was  thus  ready 
to  redress  the  grievances  of  Ireland,  was  he,  in  the  mean  time,  to 
see  the  law  outraged — nay,  despised  by  a  furious  and  misguided 
multitude?  Talk  of  the  distribution  of  Church  property  in  a 
country  in  which  no  property  was  respected,  and  were  they  to  be 
told  that,  to  enforce  the  law  against  the  robber,  and  the  murderer, 
and  the  incendiary,  was  to  drive  an  injured  people  into  civil  war? 
Did  they  who  talked  thus  wildly  recollect  the  present  deplorable 
state  of  Ireland  ?  Did  they  recollect  that,  in  one  county  alone, 
according  to  the  authority  of  the  right  hon.  Secretary  for  Ireland, 
not  less  than  sixty  murders,  or  attempts  at  murder,  had  been  per 
petrated  in  comparatively  a  few  weeks,  and  not  less  than  600 
burglaries,  or  attempts  at  burglary  ?  Why  this  was  far  worse 
than  civil  war.  A  loss  of  life  and  property  equal  to  the  sacking 
of  three  or  four  towns.  Civil  war,  indeed  !  he  declared  solemnly 
that  he  would  rather  live  in  the  midst  of  any  civil  wars  he  had 
ever  read  of,  than  live  in  some  parts  of  Ireland  at  this  time.  Much 
rather  would  he  have  lived  on  the  line  of  the  Pretender's  march 


214  AFFAIRS  OF  THE  COUNTRY. 

at  Carlisle  or  at  Preston,  than  now  live  in  some  of  the  districts  of 
Ireland  in  which  burglary  and  murder  were  the  nightly  occupa 
tions.  In  point  of  fact,  to  threaten  civil  war  was  only  to  threaten 
that  which  was  now  suffered,  for  Ireland  was  in  a  state  of  civil 
war.  And  yet,  to  endeavour  to  put  an  end  to  such  a  disgraceful 
scene  of  anarchy  and  strife  was,  forsooth,  "  brutally"  to  coerce 
Ireland.  He  repeated  that  the  civil  war  had  long  since  begun, 
and,  if  not  checked,  must  end  in  the  ruin  of  the  empire.  In  the 
course  of  the  remarks  with  which  he  had  thus  troubled  the  House, 
he  had  avoided  all  allusion  to  those  irritating  topics  connected  with 
the  vituperations  which  the  hon.  and  learned  member  for  Dublin 
had,  more  than  once,  thought  it  fitting  to  pour  out  against  the 
party  now  in  office.  That  party  would  spare  itself  the  task  of 
reproaching  him  with  conduct,  to  say  the  least,  savouring  of  ingra 
titude.  The  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman  might  be  assured  that 
his  abuse  was  not  a  bit  more  stinging  to  those  against  whom  it 
was  directed,  than  that  which  was  so  lavishly  bestowed  upon  them 
by  those  who  so  long  withheld  from  him  and  his  Catholic 
brethren  their  political  rights,  and  who  were  now  allied  with  him 
in  hostility  against  those  very  persons  who  were  ever  the  earnest 
and  uncompromising  advocates  of  those  rights.  He  might  be 
assured  that  the  high-minded  men  who  braved  the  "  no  Popery" 
cry  in  all  its  fury,  were  not  likely  to  be  scared  by  a  cry  for  the 
Repeal  of  the  Union.  As  attached  to  that  party  known  by  the 
name  of  "the  Whigs,"  it  was  not  for  him  to  speak  of  their  claims 
upon  the  favour  of  an  enlightened  public.  The  time  would  come, 
when  history  would  do  them  justice,  and  would  show,  among 
other  things  not  unworthy  of  commendation,  how  much  they  had 
done  and  suffered  for  Ireland  ;  it  would  show  that,  in  1807,  they 
left  office  because  they  could  not  knock  off  the  political  fetters  of 
their  Catholic  fellow-subjects;  and  that,  for  the  same  sacred  cause, 
they  remained  upwards  of  twenty  years  out  of  office,  though  more 
than  once  it  was  within  their  grasp,  braving  at  the  same  time  the 


AFFAIRS  OF  THE  COUNTRY.  215 

frowns  of  the  court  and  the  hisses  of  the  multitude.  Yes,  for  the 
Catholics  they  renounced  power  and  place,  without  obtaining  in 
return  the  poor  reward  of  a  fleeting  popularity.  These  were  men, 
in  those  days  of  "  no  Popery"  triumph,  who  might,  by  uttering 
one  little  word  against  the  Catholics — nay,  in  some  places,  by 
merely  not  saying  a  little  word  in  favour  of  them,  have  been 
returned  by  numerous  constituencies  to  a  seat  in  the  Legislature ; 
but  who,  sooner  than  utter  that  little  word,  contrary  to  their  well- 
founded  convictions  of  right  and  justice,  were  not  only  excluded 
from  Parliament,  but  from  all  those  places  of  honour  and  trust 
which  are  coveted  by  every  high-minded  English  gentleman ! 
The  Whigs  retired  from  public  life,  but  their  honour  was  unsullied. 
The  clamour,  therefore,  which  the  hon.  and  learned  member  for 
Dublin  was  endeavouring  to  excite  against  Earl  Grey's  Government 
could  not  be  of  much  moment,  compared  with  that  which  Earl 
Grey  had  already  withstood  in  order  to  place  the  learned  Gentle 
man  where  he  sat.  Though  a  comparatively  young  member  of 
the  Whig  party,  he  could  take  it  upon  him  to  speak  their  senti 
ments  on  this  head.  He  therefore  could  tell  the  hon.  and  learned 
Gentleman  that  the  same  spirit  and  moral  courage  which  sustained 
the  Whigs  when  out  of  office,  in  their  conflict  with  bad  laws, 
would  sustain  them  in  office  in  their  conflict  with  the  enemies  of 
good  laws.  They  were  not  deterred  by  clamour  from  making  the 
learned  Gentleman  not  less  than  a  British  subject ;  he  might  be 
assured  they  would  never  suffer  him  to  be  more.  In  saying  this, 
he  believed  that  he  was  speaking  the  sentiments  of  many  thousands. 
He  was  proud  to  say  that  he  stood  there,  for  the  first  time,  the 
Representative  of  a  new,  a  great,  and  a  flourishing  community, 
who  conceived  that,  at  the  present  time,  the  service  of  the  people 
was  not  incompatible  with  that  of  the  Crown ;  and  who  had  sent 
him  there,  charged  (as  the  words  of  his  Majesty's  writ  expressed 
it),  "  to  do  and'  consent  to  such  things  as  should  be  proposed  in 
the  great  council  of  the  kingdom."  In  their  name,  therefore,  he 


216  AFFAIRS  OF  THE  COUNTRY. 

hereby  gave  his  full  assent  to  that  part  of  the  Address  wherein  the 
House  declared  its  resolution  to  maintain,  by  the  help  of  God,  the 
connexion  between  England  and  Ireland  inviolate,  and  to  intrust 
to  the  Sovereign  such  powers  as  might  be  necessary  for  the  security 
of  property,  for  the  maintenance  of  order,  and  for  preserving, 
entire,  the  integrity  of  the  empire. 


217 


THE  DISTURBANCES  (IRELAND)  BILL.* 
FEB.  28,  1833. 

HE  confessed,  that  the  apprehensions  entertained  by  the  lion,  and 
learned  Gentleman  who  had  just  sat  down  [Mr.  Sheil]  did  not 
appear  to  him  to  be  in  any  degree  well-grounded,  nor  did  he  think 
that  the  speech  of  that  lion,  and  learned  Gentleman,  however  much 
it  had  been  cheered  at  that  side  of  the  House,  would  at  all  weaken 
the  lasting  impression  made  by  the  admirable  address  delivered 
by  his  right  hon.  friend  (Mr.  Stanley)  yesterday  evening.  That 
speech  had  produced  an  impression  which  he  was  convinced  would 
not  easily  be  removed  from  the  minds  of  those  who  heard  it. 
The  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman  had  told  them,  that  that  speech, 
great  as  he  admitted  it  to  be,  owed  much  of  its  force  to  the  pre 
possessions  of  the  majority  in  that  House.  According  to  the  hon. 
and  learned  Gentleman,  it  would  appear  that  English  members 
were  eager  to  find  an  excuse  for  exposing  Ireland  to  the  operation 
of  this  measure.  For  himself  and  for  those  who  concurred  with 
him  in  opinion  as  to  the  necessity  of  the  measure,  he  begged  most 
distinctly  and  positively  to  repudiate  the  charge.  That  English 
men  were  anxious  for  some  excuse  to  put  their  fellow-subjects  of 
Ireland  out  of  the  pale  of  the  Constitution  was,  he  must,  in  jus 
tice  to  himself  and  other  English  members,  say,  altogether  un 
founded.  For  his  own  part,  he  had  never  risen  in  that  House 
under  more  painful  feelings  than  those  which  now  oppressed  him. 
He  had  never  thought,  that  it  would  have  become  necessary  for 
him  to  stand  up  and  defend  the  suspension  of  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act, 

*  Hansard,  3d  series,  Vol.  xv.  p.  1326-1337. 
VOL.  I.  10 


218  DISTURBANCES     (IRELAND)     BILL. 

and  the  suspension  of  the  trial  by  jury.  But  on  what  grounds 
did  he  defend  that  course  ?  Before  he  went  to  those  grounds,  he 
would  begin  by  saying,  that  he  entertained  no  feelings  with  respect 
to  the  rights  and  liberties,  and  prosperity  of  England,  which  he 
did  not  hold  as  fully  and  as  strongly  in  regard  to  those  of  Ireland. 
He  thought  there  was  no  situation  in  the  life  of  a  public  man 
more  painful  than  that  in  which  he  found  himself,  under  the 
necessity  of  supporting  the  suspension  of  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act, 
and  even  the  temporary  abolition  of  the  trial  by  jury.  These 
were  sacred  portions  of  our  Constitution,  older  than  Parliament 
itself — their  origin  was  lost  in  the  darkness  of  ancient  times,  they 
were  beyond  the  Heptarchy  ;  they  formed  parts  of  the  great 
charter  of  British  liberties ;  they  were  those  great  bulwarks  of 
freedom  for  which  our  ancestors  had  bravely  and  successfully 
struggled — to  preserve  which  kings  had  been  deposed,  dynas 
ties  had  been  changed — for  which  a  noble  army  of  martyrs  had 
bled.  He  touched  those  sacred  bulwarks  with  trembling  and  awe. 
Never  ought  they  to  be  touched  or  disturbed  but  in  case  of  the 
greatest  necessity  ;  but  that  necessity  once  made  out,  he  would  not 
stop  to  inquire,  how  far  or  how  short  he  was  to  go  beyond  them. 
He  would  not — having  once  admitted  the  principle — enter  into 
the  details,  for  they  must  be  granted,  in  order  that  the  application 
of  the  principle  might  not  be  in  vain.  He  could  imagine  nothing 
worse  than  the  enactment  of  a  measure  which,  being  unconstitu 
tional,  should,  at  the  same  time,  be  ineffectual,  which,  while  it 
went  beyond  the  law,  did  not  afford  any  security  for  the  briefness 
of  its  own  duration.  In  departing  from  the  law,  he  would  rather 
err  on  the  side  of  vigour  than  of  lenity.  He  would  therefore 
adopt  a  strong  measure,  that  its  duration  might  be  short,  and  that 
it  might  be  less  liable  to  be  drawn  into  a  precedent.  When  once, 
therefore,  he  had  made  up  his  mind  that  a  suspension  of  the 
Habeas  Corpus  and  of  the  trial  by  jury  had  become  necessary,  it 
was  to  him  of  little  importance  to  go  into  discussion  as  to  details, 


DISTURBANCES     (IRELAND)     BILL.  219 

and  in  that  feeling  he  would  not  inquire  which  would,  be  the  best 
substitute  for  the  trial  by  jury — the  trial  by  one  judge,  or  by  three 
barristers,  or  by  courts-martial — for  though  he  was  not  without  an 
opinion  as  to  which  was  the  best,  he  would  not  stop  to  choose 
between  them,  but  as  he  had  mentioned  them,  he  must  say  that,  in 
his  opinion,  any  of  them  would  be  preferable  to  that  substitute 
suggested  by  the  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman  who  had  just  addressed 
the  House.  That  the  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman  seemed  to  think, 
that  the  trials  under  the  Bill  before  them  ought  to  be  by  a  jury, 
but  a  jury  chosen  from  the  aristocracy.  Now,  it  seemed  to  be 
generally  admitted,  at  least  he  had  not  yet  heard  any  hon.  member 
who  controverted  the  opinion,  that  the  very  worst  hands  to  which 
the  administration  of  strong  measures  like  the  present  could  be 
confided,  were  the  local  gentry  or  magistracy.  Yet,  to  something 
like  this,  to  a  sort  of  special  jury  of  the  aristocracy,  would  the 
hon.  and  learned  member  confide  the  administration  of  these 
strong  measures.  He  would  have  a  jury  of  the  Protestant  gentry 
to  try  the  Catholic  peasantry.  Could  anything  be  more  likely  to 
create  irritation,  when  the  passions  and  prejudices  and  supersti 
tions  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people  would  be  opposed  to  it  ? 
"Was  that  the  course  which  the  hon.  and  learned  member  would 
adopt  ?  But  how,  then,  could  a  jury  of  the  aristocracy  be 
formed,  without  incurring  the  objection  that  seemed  so  generally 
to  prevail  as  to  the  unfitness  of  the  local  gentry  to  administer  strong 
measures  ?  Let  him,  without  going  further  into  details,  which,  he 
repeated,  he  looked  upon  as  of  minor  importance,  if  the  necessity 
for  the  principle  was  made  out — let  him  ask,  was  that  necessity 
proved  to  exist  ?  He  thought  it  was.  The  question  of  that  neces 
sity  was  divided  into  two  great  parts.  There  was  predial  agitation 
and  political  agitation.  Was  any  doubt  entertained  of  the  exist 
ence  of  the  former  ?  Could  anything  be  more  appalling  than  the 
details  which  were  received,  and  some  of  which  the  House  had 
heard,  as  to  the  meetings  and  outrages  of  the  peasantry  ?  Well, 


220  DISTURBANCES     (IRELAND)     BILL. 

but  it  was  said,  "  put  a  stop  to  that,"  and  he  thought  he  had 
heard  it  said,  let  it  be  enacted  that  any  man  in  the  disturbed  dis 
tricts  who  was  found  from  his  home  after  eight  o'clock  at  night, 
should  be  liable  to  the  punishment,  not  only  of  a  misdemeanour, 
but  a  felony.     ["  No,  no,"  from  Mr.  0'  ConnelL]     If  his  ears  had 
riot  deceived  him,  that  was  said,  and  there  were  many  near  him 
who  were  under  the  same  impression.     But,  perhaps,  there  had 
been  some  words  said  very  like  them  in  sound,  though  differing  in 
sense,  as  in  another  case,  which  must  still  be  fresh  in  the  recollec 
tion  of  the  House.     He  thought  that  something  of  the  kind  was 
said  at  the  time  when  a  threat  was  intimated  of  vengeance  to  be 
taken  for  Ireland  by  the  mob  of  St.  Giles's.     To  him  it  appeared 
to  be  incontrovertibly  proved,  that  predial  agitation  existed,  and  it 
was  closely  connected  with  political  agitation.     He  did  not  rest  on 
the  anecdotes  which  he  had  heard  on  the  subject,  though  some 
of  them  were  of  great  importance  as  showing  the  opinions  of  the 
great  mass  of  the  people.     He  did  not  take  this  proof  from  the 
ballads  on  which  the  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman  (Mr.  Sheil)  had 
commented  ;  yet,  from  circumstances  such  as  these,  trifling  as  they 
might  at  first  appear,  the  signs  of  the  times  might  often  be  col 
lected.     Such  things  were,  as  Lord  Bacon  said,  like  straws  which, 
thrown  up,  showed  which  way  the  wind  blew.     Taking  the  whole 
of  what  he  had  heard,  he  could  not  refuse  his  belief  to  the  facts, 
nor  could  he  avoid  coming  to  the  conclusion,  that  there  was  a 
close  connexion  between  predial  and  political  agitation.     A  like 
ness  existed  both  in  feature  and  in  principle,  and  the  principle  of 
each  was  evidently  one  and  the  same — that  of  preventing  peaceable 
inhabitants  from  being  loyal  to  their  King,  and  obeying  the  laws 
of  their  country.      Both  were  founded   on    intimidation.      The 
Whitefeet  threatened,  and  put  their  own  threat  into  execution  ;  the 
political  agitators  also  held  out   their  threats,  and  in  doing  so 
usurped  a  power  which  no  subject  had  a  right  to.     There  was  an 
active  and  a  passive  resistance  to  the  law.     That  the  active  was 


DISTURBANCES     (IRELAND)    BILL.  221 

unlawful  no  man  would  pretend  to  deny  ;  that  the  passive  resist 
ance — that  which  directed  or  recommended  men  not  to  deal  with 
other  men  of  certain  political  opinions — not  to  buy  from  or  sell  to 
them,  was  also  unlawful ;  he  would  assert ;  and  he  was  satisfied 
that  the  hon.  and  learned  member  for  Dublin  would  not  stake  his 
legal  reputation  on  the  assertion  that  it  was  otherwise.  But  there 
were  other  modes  of  intimidation.  What  were  those  district  courts 
which  were  recommended,  and  to  which  men  were  told  to  refer 
their  differences  ?  What  were  those  but  so  many  sources  of  inti 
midation,  by  which  those  who  should  refuse  to  conform  to  them 
were  to  be  held  up  to  public  odium  ?  What  was  that  organization 
of  an  unarmed  body,  which  might  be  armed  ?  Were  not  all  these 
so  many  means  of  intimidation  ?  They  had  heard  in  that  House 
of  declarations  against  the  Whitefeet,  of  disavowals  of  their  acts ; 
no  doubt,  most,  if  not  all,  of  their  acts  were  such  as  no  m#n  had 
yet  the  hardihood  to  defend.  But  was  there  no  use  in  keeping  up 
excitement  just  below  crime,  and  amongst  those  who  were  just 
above  the  vilest  criminals?  Was  such  agitation  not  of  some  benefit 
to  those  who  made  a  profit  of  it,  and  could  they  be  otherwise  than 
desirous  that  it  should  be  kept  up  just  below  that  point  where  it 
excited  the  disgust  and  the  horror  of  all  reasonable  men  ?  Some 
men  turned  agitation  into  a  lucrative  trade,  and  it  was  of  use  to 
those  who  could  turn  it  to  a  profitable  account.  But  why,  he  would 
ask,  declaim  so  strongly  against  the  predial  agitation  by  the  White- 
feet  and  others,  when  they  who  so  declaimed,  kept  up  an  agitation, 
of  a  different  kind  as  to  the  means  it  was  true,  but  much  alike  in 
the  tendency  ?  Suppose  one  of  those  Whitefeet  brought  before  an 
association  of  agitators  of  a  different  kind,  and  asked  to  account 
for  his  conduct,  what  would  be  his  natural  answer  ?  "  You,'1  he 
would  say,  "  agitate,  so  do  I ;  you  pursue  one  course,  I  another  ; 
you  intimidate,  so  do  I ;  but  though  the  execution  of  my  threats 
is  more  immediate,  it  is  not  more  certain  than  that  of  yours  in  the 
result.  You  speak  of  your  unarmed  volunteers,  so  have  I  mine ; 


222  DISTURBANCES     (IRELAND)    BILL. 

mostly  unarmed,  but  I  have  iny  arms  under  lock  and  key,  to  be 
delivered  for  use  as  occasion  may  require.  I  have  as  much  right 
to  act  against  the  law  in  my  way  as  you  have  in  yours."  What 
was  the  difference  between  this  active  and  passive  resistance  ? 
Why,  the  active  resister  of  the  law  was  exposed  to  great  personal 
risk,  from  which  the  cunning  of  the  passive  resister  might  screen 
him.  In  this  respect  the  difference  between  them  was,  he  admitted, 
great,  but  in  a  moral  point  of  view,  were  they  not  both  the  same  ? 
The  active  resister  might  well  ask,  "  Who  gave  you  the  right  to 
draw  the  line,  and  to  say  where  passive  resistance  should  end,  and 
where  the  active  should  begin  ?  Who  made  you  Judges  over 
your  fellow-countrymen  ?  What  right  have  you  to  determine  on 
taking  up  arms,  and  forming  yourselves  into  what  you  call  a 
national  guard  ?  You  say  you  have  grievances  to  redress.  So 
have  we.  W"e  have  woods  to  cut  down,  cultivated  grounds  to 
uncultify,  houses  and  farm-yards  to  burn  down,  stewards  and  land 
lords  to  dismiss ;  and  we  do  this  with  the  same  right  that  you 
have  to  take  upon  you  to  cure  your  own  wrongs."  The  Whitefeet 
might  be  disavowed  by  the  agitators  and  pacificators,  but  that  the 
acts  of  the  one  had  a  connexion  with  the  agitation  of  the  other 
he  thought  no  man  who  paid  any  attention  to  what  was  passing 
in  Ireland  could  for  a  moment  entertain  a  doubt.  But  suppose, 
for  a  moment,  that  no  such  connexion  existed,  still  he  would  con 
tend,  that  political  agitation  was  a  proper  subject  for  legislative 
interference.  It  was,  as  it  had  been  seen,  a  usurpation  of  the 
power  of  law,  a  self-appointed  association,  sitting  to  try  causes — 
not  merely  a  civil,  but  also  a  criminal  tribunal,  where  men 
were  denounced  for  holding  certain  political  opinions,  and  the 
terror  of  those  denunciations  obliged  those  who  gave  an  honest 
vote  to  move  about  with  pistols  in  their  pockets  for  the  protection 
of  their  lives.  What  did  such  an  association  want  ?  A  story  was 
told  of  a  king  of  Scotland,  who,  meeting  a  border  robber,  was  so 
struck  by  the  number  of  his  followers  and  the  splendor  of  their 


DISTURBANCES     (IRELAND)     BILL.  223 

appearance,  that  he  exclaimed,  "What  wants  that  knave  which 
beseems  a  king  ?"  So  he  said,  what  wanted  the  Volunteers  ? 
Not  power — not  terror — they  wanted  nothing  but  responsibility  to 
make  them  a  government.  He  would  as  soon  trust  to  .them,  as 
soon  be  under  their  domination,  as  of  those  ancient  secret  societies 
of  Germany,  who  sent  their  spies  abroad,  and  despatched  their 
assassins  to  the  right  hand  and  to  the  left.  History  scarcely 
supplied  a  parallel  of  a  similar  association.  The  present  Volun 
teers  compared  themselves  to  the  Volunteers  of  1782,  and  to  the 
Unions  of  England.  Nothing  could  be  more  grossly  incorrect 
than  the  comparison — nothing  more  unlike  than  the  two  things. 
He  knew  of  no  body  to  which  they  could  be  compared — at  least 
no  existing  society.  The  only  one  that  he  could  recollect  was  one 
which,  by  its  applications,  had  usurped  all  the  powers  of  Govern 
ment,  and  which,  through  the  medium  of  its  dictators,  spread 
tyranny  over  the  unhappy  country  in  which  it  existed.  He  meant, 
as  might  be  easily  seen,  the  Jacobin  Club  of  the  first  French  revo 
lution.  That  club  was  long  under  the  control  of  a  man  who  was 
the  idol  of  the  people,  but  who,  after  plunging  his  country  into  the 
abyss  of  ruin,  miserably  perished.  It  was  to  that  club,  and  to  that 
only,  that  the  present  political  associations  in  Ireland  could  be 
assimilated.  In  their  organization,  in  their  conduct,  there  was  a 
resemblance  between  the  Jacobin  Club  and  the  Irish  Volunteers. 
Let  anybody  read  the  debates  and  speeches  of  both  societies,  and 
the  closest  application  would  be  found  in  his  comparison.  A  mem 
ber  of  this  Irish  association  declares  that  he  will  stand  upon  a 
mine,  to  the  train  of  which  the  match  is  about  to  be  applied,  if 
the  great  leader  of  that  association  commands  it.  So,  among  the 
Jacobins,  were  found  those  who  would  drink  poison  rather  than 
disobey  the  wishes  of  their  chiefs,  or  separate  themselves  from 
their  political  fortunes.  Since  those  associations  followed  the 
career  chalked  out  to  them  by  the  Jacobins — since  they  imitated 
them  in  even  minute  details — should  the  present  Government 


224  DISTURBANCES     (IRELAND)     BILL. 

imitate  that  weak  administration  of  France,  which  shut  its  eyes 
upon  the  designs  of  those  Jacobins — allowed  them  to  wax  power 
ful,  and  at  last  to  dictate  to  all  without  control  ?  He  hoped 
not,  and  that  it  would  be  taught  by  experience,  and  destroy  the 
evil  in  its  bud.  He  would  ask  a  Reformed  Parliament,  freely 
chosen  by  the  electors  of  the  greatest  nation  of  the  world, 
whether  it  was  to  see  such  power  assumed  by  any  body  of  men — 
he  would  ask  them  as  freemen,  whether  they  could  sanction  the 
existence  of  such  associations  ?  In  former  times  there  were  brave 
men  who  had  resisted  the  tyranny  of  the  Stuarts ;  but  when  they 
saw  a  fresh  tyranny  springing  up,  they  naturally  enough  asked ; 
"  Have  we  slain  the  lion  in  order  to  be  devoured  by  the  wolf  ?" 
So  he  asked,  "  Had  they  beaten  down  parliamentary  corruption, 
only  to  make  way  for  the  rule  of  clubs  ?"  He  belonged  to  that 
party  which  had  carried  Reform,  in  order  to  avoid  revolution. 
But  that  party  had  not  fought  the  battle  against  the  proudest 
aristocracy  in  the  world,  in  order  that  an  oligarchy  which  had 
since  sprung  up  should  rule  in  its  stead,  an  oligarchy  which  had  no 
title  to  power  but  the  lenity  of  the  Government  and  its  own 
audacity.  Were  they  prepared  to  surrender  Ireland  to  the  domi 
nation  of  such  a  party  ?  It  was  said  that  this  measure  would 
destroy  liberty  in  Ireland.  Where  was  that  liberty  ?  He  remem 
bered  in  Mr.  Matthews's  very  amusing  description  of  American 
peculiarities,  the  exclamation  of  the  Kentucky  man,  who  cried  out, 
"  Pretty  liberty,  when  a  man  cannot  wallop  his  own  nigger."  He 
might  say  of  the  sort  of  liberty  enjoyed  in  Ireland,  "  Pretty  liberty, 
where  a  man  cannot  enjoy  or  express  his  own  opinion — pretty 
liberty,  where  a  man  is  not  secure  of  his  property  or  life — where 
he  is  constantly  obliged  to  go  about  armed,  to  protect  himself  from 
the  violence  of  those  who  will  not  allow  him  to  think  and  judge  for 
himself — where  he  is  called  upon  to  resort  to  those  self-constituted 
courts  of  arbitration  rather  than  to  the  ordinary  tribunals  of  the  land 
— a  liberty  that  prevents  buying  or  selling — a  liberty  that 


DISTURBANCES     (IRELAND)     BILL.  225 

flourishes  in  the  midst  of  conspiracies — a  liberty  whose  insignia 
are  plunder  and  assassination."  That  was  the  liberty  Ireland  was 
to  be  bereft  of!  Never  was  that  word  more  profaned — never  was 
that  sacred  word  of  liberty  more  foully  abused,  than  it  was  at  pre 
sent  in  Ireland.  The  history  of  Europe  gave  but  one  example  of 
such  profanation  of  the  word  Liberty — that  was,  when  over  the 
doors  of  the  execrable  Jacobin  Club  were  emblazoned  the  words, 
"  Liberty  or  Death."  The  Government  were  defending  real  liberty, 
when  they  asked  for  those  coercive  measures  so  much  decried. 
What  were  the  Habeas  Corpus  and  Trial  by  Jury  intended  for  ? 
Why,  to  be  the  means,  not  the  ends,  of  protecting  life  and  pro 
perty  ;  they  were  valuable,  because  they  secured  life — because 
they  secured  property — because  they  protected  order — and  they 
became  worthless  the  instant  they  afforded  protection  to  villains 
and  depredators.  Allusion  had  been  made  to  former  measures  of 
this  kind.  He  would  say,  that  there  never  was  a  measure  which 
stood  on  such  grounds  as  this,  and  for  which  such  a  necessity 
existed.  ISTo  Ministry  had  ever  yet  applied  for  such  measures  who 
stood  upon  the  same  grounds  as  the  present  Ministers.  The  pre 
sent  Ministers  had  the  confidence  of  the  nation,  and  would  not 
abuse  it.  They  asked  for  great  powers  to  be  granted  them  ;  but, 
at  the  same  time,  they  felt  that  they  were  responsible  to  a  Reformed 
Parliament  for  the  use  they  made  of  those  powers.  Besides,  they 
asked  for  those  powers,  in  order  to  be  able  to  apply  to  Ireland 
those  measures  of  redress  which  they  knew  she  was  entitled  to. 
It  had  been  argued,  last  night,  by  the  hon.  member  for  Lincoln 
(Mr.  E.  L.  Bulwer),  that,  with  them,  it  was  "  to-day,  concession — 
to-morrow,  coercion.  A  quick  alternation  of  kicks  and  kindness — 
coaxing  with  the  hand,  and  spurring  with  the  heel."  Such  an 
accusation  did  not  come  well  and  consistently  from  that  hon. 
Member,  as  he  would  confess,  if  he  recollected  his  words  on  the 
Address  to  the  Throne ;  he  said  then,  "  If  you  ask  for  coercive 

powers,  whv  do  you  not,  at  the  same  time,  hold  out  measures  of 

10* 


226  DISTURBANCES     (IRELAND)    BILL. 

redress  ?" — That  was  the  very  thing  Government  did  ;  it  agreed 
with  the  hon.  Member's  first  thoughts,  which,  in  his  humble 
opinion,  were  better  than  his  second  thoughts.  The  Government, 
in  asking  for  those  measures,  gave  a  strong  proof  of  consistency — 
a  strong  proof  that  it  acted  upon  the  principles  of  Reform.  It  was 
a  proof  that  it  still  advocated  the  same  principles  as  when  it 
recommended  Reform.  It  was  determined  to  provide  a  remedy  in 
time,  so  that  it  might  not  be  compelled  to  legislate  in  the  midst  of 
such  scenes  as  were  acted  at  Nottingham  and  Bristol.  They  had 
recommended  Reform  as  a  remedy,  and  they  were  determined  it 
should  not  be  abused.  Two  different  diseases  existed  in  Ireland, 
and  they  had  different  remedies  for  the  grievances  complained  of, 
and  for  the  system  of  outrage.  To  the  latter,  which  was  a  tempo 
rary  paroxysm,  would  be  applied  temporary  remedies — to  the 
former,  which  were  founded  upon  deeply-rooted  discontent,  would 
be  applied  an  efficacious,  speedy,  and  yet  permanent  cure.  At 
all  events,  the  present  Government,  in  asking  for  coercive  powers, 
were  only  following  the  example  of  the  Administrations  that 
went  before  them.  He  considered,  that  the  present  state  of 
Ireland  might  be  aptly  compared  to  the  state  of  the  Highlands 
of  Scotland  eighty  years  ago.  At  that  period  there  existed  in 
the  Highlands  two  species  of  agitation — predial  and  political 
agitation.  The  one  carried  on  under  the  influence  of  Lord  Lovat, 
resembled  the  political  associations  of  Ireland  at  the  present  day. 
The  other,  the  principle  of  which  was  burnings,  robbery,  and 
murder,  was  conducted  by  the  noted  Rob  Roy.  The  means  of 
the  two  were  different,  yet  they  were  closely  connected.  The 
Government  of  that  day  broke  up  the  connexion,  which  was  more 
honest  than  the  present,  for  that  was  kept  up  by  family  ties, 
the  present  by  intimidation  ;  but  the  Government  broke  it  up 
by  the  enactment  of  salutary  laws,  and  at  the  same  time  it 
improved  the  condition  of  the  Highlanders  by  making  roads 
and  bridges,  and  otherwise  facilitating  intercourse  to  every  part 


DISTURBANCES     (IRELAND)     BILL.  227 

of  the  country.  And  what  is  now  the  consequence,  he  would 
ask,  of  having  then  had  recourse  -to  means  of  coercion  ?  Let 
the  Highlanders  be  asked  :  there  would  not  be  found  one  among 
them  who  did  not  bless  the  severity  used  towards  them  at  the 
period  mentioned,  and  the  salutary  wisdom  that  dictated  that 
severity.  He  had  no  desire  whatsoever  to  disguise  the  appalling 
features  of  the  present  measure.  Though  it  were  nothing  but  a 
mere  experiment  (if  an  experiment,  it  was  at  least  experimentum 
in  corpore  vili),  though  its  features  were  still  more  hideous,  yet 
it  was  less  appalling  than  the  state  of  things  in  Ireland.  It 
asked  for  courts-martial ;  but  could  any  thing  that  would  result 
from  them,  by  any  possibility,  be  half  so  despotic  and  arbitrary 
as  what  might  be  expected  from  the  New  National  Guards 
already  organized  and  prepared  to  extend  their  sway  ?  Look 
ing  at  the  courts-martial  in  their  worst  light,  were  they  so  bad 
as  the  courts  which  were  now  opened  to  try  men  for  their 
political  opinions ;  and  having  passed  sentence  of  denunciation 
against  them,  to  hand  them  over  to  the  peasantry,  with  the 
request  that  they  might  be  dealt  with  as  leniently  as  possible? 
See  how  the  two  systems  would  operate — that  of  the  proposed 
measure,  and  the  one  which  at  present  prevailed.  This  would  tend 
to  prevent  illegal  assemblages  at  night ;  that  which  now  prevailed 
tended  only  to  encourage  the  midnight  assassin.  This  would 
authorize  domiciliary  visits,  in  order  to  find  out  who  were  engaged 
in  these  outrages ;  the  other  made  those  visits  only  to  punish  the 
innocent.  He  knew  which  species  of  visits  he  should  prefer ;  and 
he  emphatically  declared,  that  let  the  measure  be  stigmatized  as  it 
might ;  let  it  be  branded  as  an  Algerine  Act,  he  preferred  it  to  a 
Kilkenny  Act.  He  would  far  rather  live  in  Algiers,  in  its  most 
despotic  day,  than  he  would  live  in  the  county  of  Kilkenny  at  the 
present  time.  There  was  last  year  as  ample  a  suspension  of  the 
laws  in  some  parts  of  Ireland  as  was  now  demanded  ;  and  yet  the 
powers  it  gave  were  not  abused.  The  cause  of  that  suspension 


228  DISTURBANCES     (IRELAND)     BILL. 

was,  to  prevent  an  evil  at  which  even  agitation  trembled — the 
further  propagation  of  cholera.  Now,  if  it  were  given  him  to 
choose,  and  to  say  which  he  should  prefer — that  dreadful  pestilence, 
such  as  it  prevailed  in  Russia  or  India,  or  this  moral  pestilence, 
under  which  there  was  no  security  for  property  or  life,  under  which 
men  were  exposed  to  the  visits  of  the  midnight  assassin,  and  to  the 
noonday  murderer,  to  having  their  houses  burned  by  night,  and  to 
be  shot  as  they  fled  from  the  fearful  conflagration — if,  he  repeated, 
it  were  given  him  to  make  a  choice  between  those  two  evils,  ho 
would  choose  the  former ;  for  he  would  say  with  the  Hebrew  king, 
"  Let  me  fall  into  the  hands  of  God,  not  into  those  of  men."  He 
had  thus  stated  his  opinion  freely  and  candidly  of  this  measure  ; 
but  he  could  assure  the  House  that,  in  wha*  he  said,  he  was  in  no 
degree  influenced  by  his  official  connexion  with  the  Government. 
He  did  not  expect  any  credit  on  this  score  from  the  hon.  and 
learned  Gentleman  opposite.  He  would  admit,  that  there  were 
many  cases  in  which  a  man  might  give  up  his  own  opinion  out  of 
respect  or  attachment  to  political  friends,  or  from  connexions  with 
Government ;  but  the  suspension  of  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act  was 
not  one  of  those  cases  in  which  such  a  sacrifice  of  opinion  could 
be  honestly  made.  He  could  appeal  to  many  of  his  hon.  friends 
near  him,  who  would  bear  testimony  to  the  fact  that  he  had  come 
down  on  an  early  night  of  the  Session,  when  the  measure  of 
Church  Reform  was  to  be  introduced,  prepared,  in  spite  of  his 
.attachment  to  those  who  formed  the  Administration,  and  in  spite  of 
his  own  connexion  with  Government,  to  separate  himself  from  that 
Government,  if  he  should  not  find  that  the  measure  to  be  pro 
posed  was  of  a  nature  which  the  country  had  a  right  to  expect. 
But  as  he  was  then  ready  to  part  from  Ministers  if  he  could  not 
concur  with  them,  so  now  he  was  ready  to  lend  them  all  the  feeble 
aid  in  his  power,  being  firmly  convinced  that  the  course  which 
they  proposed  was  the  right  one.  He  should .  have  no  fear  of 
meeting  his  constituents  in  consequence  of  his  vote  on  this  occa- 


DISTURBANCES     (IRELAND)     BILL.  229 

sion.  He  knew  their  zeal  for  liberty ;  but  he  also  knew  that  it 
was  zeal  with  knowledge.  While  they  would  oppose  any  unne 
cessary  inroad  on  the  rights  of  any  portion  of  their  fellow-subjects, 
they  would,  though  they  regretted  its  necessity,  not  object  to  a 
measure  which,  while  it  temporarily  suspended  the  Constitution, 
did  so  only  that  it  might  not  be  wholly  endangered  by  anarchy. 
He  would  willingly  render  them  an  account  of  his  conduct, 
satisfied  that  they  were  too  sincerely  attached  to  true  liberty,  and 
too  enlightened,  not  to  distinguish  between  it  and  that  unbridled 
license  which  could  end  only  in  the  worst  of  slavery.  Whatever 
might  be  the  result  of  the  opinions  he  had  expressed,  he  would 
abide  by  them.  He  had  made  up  his  mind  on  the  subject.  He 
might  become  the  victim  of  popular  injustice,  but  he  would  never 
condescend  to  be  its  flatterer. 


230 


CHURCH  REFORM,  IRELAND.* 

APRIL    1,    1833. 

In  Committee  on  the  plan  for  regulating  the  temporalities  of  the 
Church  of  Ireland. 

HE  had  two  species  of  opposition  to  contend  against — that  of 
those  hon.  Gentlemen  who  did  not  conceive  the  Bill  went  far 
enough,  and  that  of  those  who  either  considered  that  it  went  too 
far,  or  of  those  who  believed  that  such  a  measure  never  should 
have  been  entered  upon  at  all.  Now,  with  respect  to  the  first,  he 
was  glad,  at  least,  to  learn  from  the  hon.  and  learned  Member 
opposite,  that  the  Bill  was  satisfactory  so  far  as  it  went,  and  that 
it  would  not  have,  in  fact,  been  equally  judicious,  if  at  present  it 
did  go  further.  On  this  opinion  of  the  hon.  and  learned  Gen 
tleman  he  was  willing  to  rest  his  defence  of  the  Ministers  for 
having  gone  no  further.  He  was  heartily  glad  that  the  hon.  and 
learned  member  for  Tipperary  had  withdrawn  his  notice  of  Motion, 
which  stood  upon  the  books  ;  and  he  wished  sincerely  that  that 
hon.  and  learned  Gentleman's  example  might  prevail  with  others, 
and  induce  them  in  like  manner  to  withdraw  the  Motions  they 
had  announced.  He  conceived  that  it  was  a  matter  of  extreme 
importance  that  this  measure  should  be  carried  ;  and  he  felt  that 
the  difficulty  of  carrying  it  would  be  most  considerably  increased 
if  it  were  made  stronger.  He  consequently  should,  if  it  were 
necessary,  feel  no  difficulty  in  moving  the  previous  question, 
should  the  hon.  Member  not  consent  to  withdraw  his  Amendment. 

*  Hanscard,  3d  Series,  vol.  xvi.  p.  1383-1393. 


CHURCH  REFORM,  IRELAND.  231 

He  had  now,  however,  to  approach  the  other  species  of  opposition 
against  which  he  had  to  contend,  and  which  was  much  the  more 
formidable  of  the  two — namely,  that  the  Bill  went  too  far,  or 
rather,  that  it  proceeded  on  an  erroneous  principle.  Among  those 
who  had  supported  this  view  of  the  subject,  the  hon.  and  learned 
member  for  Dover  had  contended,  that  if  his  Majesty  should  give 
his  sanction  to  this  measure,  it  would  be  given  in  direct  violation 
of  his  Coronation  Oath.  The  hon.  and  learned  Member  also  said, 
that  this  measure  was  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  Church,  and 
of  the  rights  of  property.  The  argument  respecting  the  Corona 
tion  Oath  was  urged  when  the  questions  of  the  Catholic  Eman 
cipation  and  the  repeal  of  the  Test  and  Corporation  Acts  were 
before  the  House,  and  he  had  thought  that  that  argument  had 
been  so  completely  refuted  on  those  occasions,  that  it  would  not 
have  been  brought  forward  again.  He  was,  however,  prepared  to 
show  that  the  objection  had  no  force.  It  was  perfectly  clear,  from 
the  words  of  the  oath,  that  they  could  not  bear  the  construction 
the  hon.  and  learned  Member  had  put  upon  them.  What  was 
the  oath  ? — that  the  King  would  maintain  for  the  Church  "  all 
such  rights  as  do,  or  by  law  shall  appertain  to  the  Church."  The 
whole  force  of  the  passage  rested  on  the  word  "  shall."  In 
another  part  of  the  oath  his  Majesty  says,  "  We  declare  to  govern 
all  our  people  according  to  the  Statutes  agreed  to  in  Parliament ;" 
but  surely  that  did  not  mean  that  his  Majesty  swore  to  govern  by 
the  Statutes  actually  in  existence  at  the  moment  he  came  to  the 
Throne.  Certainly  not ;  for  if  that  were  the  sense  of  the  passage, 
every  Act  of  Parliament  to  which  the  Sovereign  gave  his  consent, 
in  the  course  of  his  reign,  would  be  an  act  of  perjury  upon  his 
part.  How  much  less,  then,  was  there  any  doubt  of  the  wording 
with  respect  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  Church !  The 
fact  was,  the  passage  was  introduced  into  the  oath  for  the  purpose 
of  guarding  the  -Church  against  such  acts  as  those  which  James 
2nd  exercised  as  head  of  the  Church.  The  present  measure  con- 


232  CHURCH  REFORM,  IRELAND. 

templated  no  interference  of  that  kind  with  the  Church,  and  it 
was  perfectly  clear  to  him,  that  the  oath  had  not  the  smallest 
reference  to  the  conduct  of  the  King  in  his  legislative  capacity, 
and  did  not  bar  him  from  giving  his  assent  to  any  measure  agreed 
to  by  both  Houses  of  Parliament.  Allusion  had  been  made  to 
the  articles  of  the  Union  as  if  they  prevented  any  change  in  the 
established  Church  of  Ireland.  The  words  of  the  5th  article  of 
the  Union  were,  that  "  the  doctrine,  discipline,  worship  and 
government  of  the  Church  are  to  be  maintained  in  both  countries 
unchanged."  If  this  measure  were  passed,  all  those  things  would 
be  unchanged.  No  alteration  was  to  be  made  in  the  Articles, 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  was  untouched,  and  the  discipline 
would  still  be  episcopal,  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  would 
retain  all  their  authority,  and  the  doctrine  and  discipline  would  be 
unaltered.  Would  it  be  said,  that  the  union  of  certain  sees  in 
Ireland  made  any  difference  in  the  doctrine,  discipline,  worship,  or 
government  of  the  Church  ?  He  should  suppose  not.  If  so,  all 
the  fundamental  principles  of  the  government  of  the  Church  of 
England  were  compromised  by  the  junction  between  the  sees  of 
Lich field  and  Coventry.  Nor  were  they  destroying  the  Church 
of  Ireland  by  arrangements  contained  in  the  Bill  for  a  different 
distribution  of  church  property.  Such  arrangements  had  been 
frequently  made  by  the  Legislature.  The  present  case  was  a 
parallel  to  the  case  of  London  after  the  fire.  The  number  of 
parishes  then  destroyed  was  eighty-seven,  and  soon  afterwards  an 
Act  passed  by  which  they  were  consolidated,  and  reduced  to  fifty- 
one,  and  a  commutation  of  tithes  for  a  fixed  money-payment  was 
also  ordained.  Indeed  local  Acts  of  a  similar  description  were 
continually  passed,  and  every  one  of  them  was  as  much  the 
destruction  of  the  Church  of  England  as  this  Bill  would  be,  were 
it  to  become  a  law  to-morrow.  It  had  next  been  asserted  that  the 
rights  of  property  had  been  attacked  by  this  Bill ;  this,  he  main 
tained,  was  an  assertion ;  if  it  could  be  proved,  he  would  give  up 


CHURCH  REFORM,  IRELAND.  233 

the  Bill.  The  right  of  property  was  of  immense  importance.  To 
preserve  that,  Kings,  and  Parliaments,  and  Coronation  Oaths,  all 
existed.  For  that  alone,  law  was  made.  Admitting  the  momen 
tous  nature  of  this  consideration,  he  denied,  that  the  rights  of 
property  had  been  attacked  by  the  framers  of  the  Bill.  No  neces 
sity  existed  which  should  induce  Ministers  to  infringe  on  those 
sacred  rights.  On  the  contrary,  Ministers  felt  bound  to  defend  to 
the  utmost  the  institution  of  property,  believing,  as  they  did,  that 
it  was  to  that  institution  mankind  were  indebted  for  the  origin  and 
the  progress  of  civilization — believing  .that  it  was  in  consequence 
of  that  institution  that  we  were  not  now,  like  our  rude  ancestors, 
naked  and  painted  bodies,  savages  feeding  upon  acorns  and  shel 
tering  ourselves  in  caves.  They  felt,  however,  at  the  same  time, 
that  in  the  institution  of  property  there  were  many  anomalies  and 
evils ;  and  yet  these  anomalies  and  evils  were  not  only  willingly, 
but  cheerfully  borne  by  the  many,  in  consideration  of  the  manifold 
blessings  which  the  institution  of  property  conferred  upon  society 
at  large.  He  would  admit,  too,  that  the  anomalies  in  the  distribu 
tion  of  the  property  of  the  Church  of  Ireland  were  not  greater 
than  in  the  distribution  of  lay  property  in  other  countries.  It  was 
an  anomaly,  that  a  young  man  who  had  never  served  the  com 
monwealth  either  with  head  or  hand  should  hold  possession  of 
half  a  county,  while  other  men  who  had  deserved  well  of  the 
State  in  arts  and  arms,  were  left  without  an  acre ;  and  yet  this 
was  cheerfully  endured  by  all,  rather  than  derange  the  settled 
order  of  things.  This  was  as  great  an  anomaly  as  existed  between 
the  Revenues  of  the  Archbishop  of  Armagh  and  the  poorest 
working  curate.  But,  as  mankind  found  no  argument  in  the 
former  for  attacking  all  property,  so  the  latter  could  apply  no 
inducement  to  attack  the  property  of  the  Irish  Church.  But,  the 
more  sacred  he  regarded  the  right  of  property,  the  more  care  did 
it  require  that  the  right  should  not  be  enfeebled  and  contaminated 
by  abuses.  It  was  by  protecting  the  abuses  with  which  it  was 


234  CHURCH  REFORM,  IRELAND. 

mingled  that  the  institution  itself  was  brought  into  disrepute. 
The  House  had  heard  from  an  eloquent  voice,  which,  alas !  they' 
would  never  hear  again,  some  opinions  upon  the  subject  of  the 
institution  of  property,  to  which  he  entirely  subscribed.  He 
alluded  to  his  excellent  and  accomplished  friend,  the  late  Sir  James 
Mackintosh,  who  in  one  of  the  discussions  on  the  Reform  Bill, 
while  he  supported  in  the  strongest  way  the  institution  of  property, 
denied  it  was  fortified  by  the  abuses  which  had  accumulated 
around  it.  He  said  :  "  Of  all  doctrines  which  threaten  the  prin 
ciple  of  property,  none  more  dangerous  was  ever  promulgated, 
than  that  which  confounds  it  with  political  privilege.  None  of 
the  disciples  of  St.  Simon,  or  of  the  followers  of  the  ingenious 
and  benevolent  Owen,  have  struck  so  deadly  a  blow  at  property, 
as  those  who  would  reduce  it  to  the  level  of  the  elective  rights  of 
Gatton  and  Old  Sarum.  Property,  the  nourisher  of  mankind,  the 
incentive  of  industry,  the  cement  of  human  society,  will  be  in  a 
perilous  condition,  if  the  people  be  taught  to  identify  it  with 
political  abuses,  and  to  deal  with  it  as  being  involved  in  their 
impending  fate."  He  entirely  concurred  in  those  observations, 
and  objected  strongly  to  those  who  cried  out  that  the  institution 
of  property  was  endangered  by  removing  any  of  the  abuses  that 
had  gathered  about  it.  He  believed  the  Government  were  most 
anxious  to  preserve  the  institution  of  property  ;  but  he  thought 
that  the  best  and  truest  friends  of  the  institution  of  property  had 
little  reason  to  be  obliged  to  those  who  talked  of  Old  Sarum  as 
being  property,  and  vested  rights  existing  in  it ;  and  of  the  ano 
malies  and  abuses  of  the  Irish  Church  being  sacred  property.  He 
wished  to  have  it  understood,  at  the  same  time,  that  he  allowed 
an  incumbent  had  a  right  of  property  in  his  benefice,  but  not  of 
the  same  species  with  the  right  to  landed  property.  The  incum 
bent  was  a  proprietor,  but  he  was  also  a  public  functionary  ;  and 
his  rights  in  the  former  capacity  were  controlled  by  his  duties  in 
the  latter.  He  held  this  property,  as  subject  not  only  to  the 


CHURCH     REFORM,    IRELAND.  235 

existing  regulations,  but  also  to  such  as  the  Legislature  might 
choose  hereafter  to  impose.  The  hon.  Gentlemen  opposite  must 
allow  that,  unless  they  were  prepared  to  charge  a  number  of 
former  Parliaments  with  spoliation,  and  many  of  the  noblest 
characters  whose  names  graced  our  history  with  having  encouraged 
schemes  of  robbery,  there  was  nothing  in  this  Bill  which  could 
authorise  the  allegations  which  had  .been  thrown  out  against  it. 
It  was  not  a  spoliation  of  individuals ;  it  was  not  a  confiscation  of 
property.  It  did  not  legalize  rapine  and  plunder.  If  that  were 
its  character,  what  must  the  Act  of  Supremacy  have  been  ?  That 
Act  deprived  Clergymen  who  took  orders  under  previous  circum 
stances,  of  their  benefices.  It  was  true  they  were  not  married,  for 
that  was  not  permitted ;  but  they  might  have  incurred  debts,  and 
involved  themselves  in  pecuniary  obligations.  Yet,  without  any 
regard  to  their  possible  situation,  the  Parliament  passed  an  Act  of 
expulsion  against  any  clergyman  who  refused  to  acknowledge  the 
supremacy  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  He  was  aware  that  few  clergymen 
were  affected  by  that  Act,  because  the  great  majority  took  the 
oath  ;  but  one  instance  of  a  clergyman  expelled  was  as  complete 
an  illustration  of  the  principle  as  a  hundred.  That  Act  was  passed 
when  the  opinions  of  men  were  loose  and  unsettled,  but  never 
theless  that  House  would  not  condemn  an  Act  by  which  the  Refor 
mation  was  firmly  established  in  England.  Again,  at  the  time  of 
the  Restoration,  when  the  Act  of  Uniformity  was  passed,  the 
Prayer  Book  was  altered.  It  was  changed  from  that  which  it 
had  been  in  the  reigns  of  James  I.  and  Charles  I. ;  and  those  cler 
gymen  who  might  conscientiously  object  to  the  new  Prayer  Book, 
were  liable  to  be  turned  out  of  their  benefices.  The  Clergymen 
were  all  told,  that  if  they  did  not  before  a  fixed  day — and  that 
day  was  St.  Bartholomew — notify  their  assent  to  the  new  Prayer 
Books,  they  would  be  ejected  from  the  Church.  The  consequence 
was,  that  several  thousands  of  the  clergy  were  obliged  to  abandon 
their  livings,  and  the  Church  lost  several  distinguished  men.  He 


236  CHURCH     REFORM,    IRELAND. 

admitted,  that  the  authority  of  many  exemplary  and  excellent 
individuals  was  given,  to  add  weight  to  the  principles  of  this 
Act ;  and  that  it  received  the  sanction  of  Sheldon,  of  Juxon,  and 
of  other  equally  celebrated  men.  That  Act  was  either  one  of 
direct  spoliation,  or  else  them  was  an  absolute  distinction  between 
Church  property  and  other  property;  since  the  proprietors  of 
benefices  were  deprived  of  their  property,  for  refusing  to  conform 
to  certain  prescribed  regulations  which  were  not  enforced  until 
long  after  they  were  in  possession  of  their  benefices.  He  would 
not  dwell  on  the  changes  at  the  Revolution,  but  he  would  come  to 
an  Act  passed  in  our  own  time,  introduced  by  one  who  could  not 
be  accused  of  any  wish  to  lessen  the  right  to  church  property — 
the  late  Mr.  Perceval — and  followed  up  and  perfected  by  Lord 
Harrowby.  According  to  the  principles  laid  down  to-night,  this 
must  have  been  as  complete  a  spoliation  of  property  as  ever  was 
committed.  It  provided,  that  all  non-resident  clergymen  should 
under  certain  circumstances,  pay  a  salary  to  a  curate,  proceeding 
upon  a  graduated  scale,  almost  similar  to  that  recommended  in  the 
measure  now  before  the  House.  That  was  as  much  a  violation  of 
the  incumbent's  right  of  property  as  was  contemplated  by  the 
present  Bill.  The  right  hon.  member  for  Tamworth  said,  on  a 
former  debate,  that  if  the  Legislature  imposed  a  tax  on  absentees, 
it  would  be  neither  more  nor  less  than  an  act  of  confiscation.  Ho 
said,  that  such  a  proceeding  would  be  utterly  inconsistent  with 
the  preservation  of  the  rights  of  property.  But,  in  the  Bill  he 
had  just  alluded  to,  and  which  was  introduced  by  one  who  was  a 
leader  of  the  high  Church  party,  within  the  last  thirty  years,  there 
was  either  a  recognition  of  the  difference  between  Church  property 
and  other  property ;  or  else  it  was  a  positive  confiscation  of 
property.  His  own  opinion  of  church  property  was,  that  it  was  a 
sort  of  mixed  property — that  it  was  something  more  than  salary, 
and  something  less  than  an  estate ;  and  no  man  could  deny,  after 
the  cases  he  had  quoted,  that  the  Legislature  had  a  right  to  deal 


CHURCH  REFORM,  IRELAND.  237 

with  it.  In  one  sense  it  might  be  compared  to  the  half-pay  of  our 
army  and  navy.  No  man  would  say,  that  the  total  abolition  of 
that  half-pay  would  not  be  a  grievous  spoliation.  Yet,  though  it 
was  admitted  to  be  the  property  of  the  individual,  no  man  would 
deny  the  right  of  the  State  to  regulate  it  in  any  manner  it  pleased. 
Such  power  had  repeatedly  been  exercised,  in  changes  and  regula 
tions  respecting  it,  both  in  respect  of  the  amount,  and  of  the 
administration  of  the  fund  from  whence  it  was  paid,  when  the 
benefit  of  the  service  had  seemed  to  require  it.  If  the  good  of 
the  Church,  and  the  well-being  of  the  community,  could  be  pro 
moted  by  a  new  distribution  of  Church  property,  was  there  any 
reason  why  the  Legislature  should  not  make  it — provided  that 
existing  interests  were  honestly  and  liberally  considered  ?  He 
admitted  that  this  measure  would  take  something  from  the  clergy  ; 
but  in  no  case  would  it  take  such  an  amount  as  to  reduce  any  of 
them  to  distress.  The  money  to  be  taken  from  them  was  to  be 
applied  to  purposes  beneficial  to  the  clergy  themselves,  and  to  the 
security  of  the  Church  in  Ireland,  by  removing  some  portion  of 
that  odium,  which  was  entertained  to  an  alarming  extent  against 
the  Establishment  in  that  country.  He  did  not  expect  to  hear  any 
hon.  member  of  that  House  contend,  that  not  filling  up  a  vacant 
bishopric  was  a  spoliation,  or  a  violation  of  property.  How  could 
it  ?  There  could  be  no  robbery  where  there  was  no  person  to  be 
robbed,  and  there  could  be  no  injury  where  there  was  no  one  to 
be  injured.  The  bishopric  of  Waterford,  for  instance,  was  vacant, 
and  it  was  not  the  intention  of  Government  to  fill  up  the  vacancy. 
To  whom  was  the  injury  done  here  ?  Not  to  the  bishop — for 
there  was  none ;  not  to  his  predecessor,  for  he  was  dead ;  nor  to 
any  of  the  10,000  persons  from  whom  a  selection  might  be  made, 
not  one  of  whom  would  probably  consider  his  chance  of  the 
appointment  worth  a  sovereign.  There  was,  then,  no  injury  to 
any,  unless  it  could  be  shown  that  those  who  had  been  under  the 
spiritual  care  of  the  preceding  bishop  were  to  be  left  without 


238  CHURCH     REFORM,    IRELAND. 

future  spiritual  instruction ;  but  if  adequate  provision  were  to  be 
made  on  that  head,  there  could  be  no  injury  to  any  party,  but 
there  would  be  a  direct  and  positive  good  in  the  application  of  the 
revenues  of  that  see  to  other  Church  purposes  which  required 
them.  He  had  heard  with  astonishment  the  argument  of  the  hon. 
and  learned  member  for  the  University  of  Dublin,  who  main 
tained,  "  that  the  whole  property  of  the  Church,  even  for  the 
purpose  of  distribution,  was  beyond  the  control  of  Parliament,  and 
that  no  Parliament  could  sanction  any  measure  of  this  kind 
without  being  guilty  of  sacrilege."  He  denied  the  truth  of  the 
proposition  of  the  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman.  Parliament  had 
the  same  power  to  alter  and  remodel,  as  to  frame ;  and  the  Church 
of  England  had  no  rights,  except  under  the  Act  of  the  Legislature. 
Did  the  hon.  and  learned  Member  say,  that  the  unity  of  the 
Church  would  be  destroyed  by  the  diminution  of  ten  Bishops  in 
Ireland,  when  the  whole  doctrine,  and  discipline,  and  worship, 
continued  the  same  ?  Or  did  he  mean  to  say,  that  that  unity  was 
to  be  kept  up  only  by  its  temporalities  remaining  in  the  same 
hands  ?  Did  he  mean  to  renew  the  doctrine  of  those  who  once 
held,  that  the  gold  was  to  be  preferred  to  the  temple  which  sanc 
tified  it  ?  Had  the  clergy  of  England  been  as  inflexible  in  doctrine 
as  some  of  their  Bishops  at  the  period  of  some  of  the  changes  of 
doctrine  and  worship  to  which  he  had  already  alluded,  would  not 
the  whole  of  the  Church  property  of  the  country  have  changed 
hands  ?  What  would  then  have  been  said  of  the  identity  of  the 
Church  ?  What  would  the  hon.  Baronet,  the  member  for  the 
University  of  Oxford,  say  to  a  revision  of  the  wills  of  those  pious 
men  by  which  the  colleges  which  he  represented  had  been  so 
liberally  founded,  and  so  munificently  endowed  ?  If  he  contended 
that  any  interference  with  Church  property  was  spoliation,  as  no 
doubt  he  would  contend,  what  would  he  say,  on  referring  back  to 
the  wills  and  donations  of  some  of  the  pious  founders  of  the 
colleges  of  Oxford  ?  William  of  Wyckham  ;  Chicheley,  the  oppo- 


CHURCH  REFORM,  IRELAND.  239 

ncnt  of  the  Lollards  •,  Flemming,  the  enemy  of  Wickliffe  ;  Cardinal 
Wolsey,  a  candidate  for  the  Papal  Throne;  Sir  Thomas  Pope, 
the  follower  of  Mary  and  the  teacher  of  Elizabeth — would  have 
burned  off  their  hands  before  they  left  bequests  which  they  con 
ceived  were  likely  to  be  used  against  the  religion  they  professed. 
If  any  one  had  told  any  of  those  pious  founders,  that  mass  would 
soon  cease  to  be  celebrated  in  the  chapels  which  they  had  built, 
and  that  the  refectories  and  chambers  of  the  halls  and  colleges 
which  they  had  endowed,  would  no  longer  be  occupied  by  those 
who  acknowledged  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  in 
England,  they  would  much  rather  have  left  their  money  for  the 
education  of  laymen  without  religion  than  have  it  used  for  the 
dissemination  of  doctrines  which  they  considered  as  atrocious 
heresy.  He  would  support  the  measure  because  he  thought  it 
would  tend  to  the  peace  of  Ireland — to  the  preservation  of  property 
there — to  the  real  benefit  of  the  clergy.  It  was  the  beginning  of 
a  series  of  judicious  measures  of  reform,  which  would  greatly 
promote  the  interests  of  religion  and  of  the  Established  Church. 
He  looked  upon  it  also,  as  one  which  would  be  for  the  interest  of 
the-people  of  England.  But,  before  he  concluded,  he  was  anxious 
to  remark  that  one  of  the  objections  urged  against  the  Bill,  wras 
that  by  reducing  the  number  of  Bishops  they  left  no  room  for  the 
expansive  force  of  Protestantism — no  machinery  by  which  the 
affairs  of  an  Enlarged  Church  might  be  administered.  Ireland 
was  about  half  the  size  of  England,  and  she  was  to  have  half  the 
number  of  Bishops  which  England  had.  If  Protestantism  should 
expand,  it  would  have  the  machinery  necessary  for  such  expansion  ; 
but  he  owned  that  he  did  not  anticipate  any  such  expansion,  with 
all  its  wealth,  and  power,  and  learning.  It  had  not  been  deficient 
in  these  aids— it  had  not  lacked  the  aid  of  whatever  they  could 
give  of  penal  laws  in  its  favour ;  and  yet  the  Protestants  of  Ire 
land  at  the  present  day  were  not  a  fourth  of  the  population,  and 
of  that  small  number  more  than  the  half  did  not  belong  to  the 


240  CHURCH     KEF011M,    IRELAND. 

Established  Church.  Compare  the  expansive  power  of  Protes 
tantism  in  Ireland  for  the  last  century  and  a  half  with  that  which 
existed  in  the  16th  century.  The  spirit — the  restless  and  over 
mastering  spirit — of  Protestantism  was  much  changed.  That 
spirit  which  displayed  itself  in  so  eminent  a  degree  in  the  16th 
century,  which  bore  it  along  triumphantly  against  Popes  and 
Ca3sars,  and  General  Councils,  and  Princes,  and  Prelates — which 
enabled  it  to  subdue  conquerors  and  armies — made  it  proof 
against  inquisitions,  and  dungeons,  and  racks,  and  slow  fires — had 
fled.  The  heart  and  mind  of  man,  supported  by  the  enthusiasm 
of  a  pure  faith,  had  then  triumphed  over  all  opposition  against  all. 
Within  a  brief  period  Protestantism  had  spread  from  the  Vistula 
to  the  Danube ;  from  the  Pyrenees  to  the  Frozen  Ocean.  The 
same  person  who  heard  Luther  preach  his  first  sermon  against 
indulgences,  might,  without  enjoying  a  life  protracted  to  a  great 
number  of  years,  have  observed  Protestantism  expanding  itself, 
and  established  in  England,  Scotland,  Ireland,  Holland,  Sweden, 
Denmark,  Norway,  the  North  of  Germany,  a  part  of  Switzerland, 
and  struggling  in  France,  not  for  toleration,  but  for  supremacy. 
But,  as  a  Protestant,  he  regretted  to  say,  that  Protestantism  had 
made  comparatively  little  progress  during  the  three  last  centuries. 
It  remained,  on  the  Continent,  where  it  had  reached  in  the  days 
of  Philip  and  Mary,  or  rather  it  had  receded  within  the  marks  to 
which  it  had  then  extended.  And  what  had  already  arrested  its 
course  in  Ireland  ?  Was  it  that  the  doctrines  were  less  pure,  or 
was  it,  that  from  the  constitution  of  the  .human  mind,  as  men 
became  more  and  more  enlightened,  they  were  less  and  less 
capable  of  perceiving  the  pure  truth  ?  •  Was  it  that  the  Protestant 
Church  in  Ireland  had  not  been  supported  by  wealth,  and  dignity, 
and  power,  and  by  the  aid  of  favouring  and  penal  laws  ?  Certainly 
not.  How  then  was  it  ?  If  he  were  a  Roman  Catholic,  he  might 
say,  because  the  Catholic  faith  was  strong  in  its  strength,  and 
founded  on  the  immortality  of  truth  ;  but,  being  a  Protestant,  he 


CHURCH  REFORM,  IRELAND.  241 

must  look  for  some  other  reason,  and  inquire  if  they  had  not 
incumbered  the  Establishment  by  worse  than  superfluous  helps, 
and  whether  in  succeeding  to  the  wealth  and  pomp  of  the  religion 
of  Rome,  Protestantism  had  not  become  tainted  with  something 
of  the  languor  of  the  old  religion  ?  Had  the  progress  of  vigorous 
and  sound  thought  been  arrested  by  that  fatal  languor  which 
accounted  for  the  want  of  success  of  a  great  general  of  antiquity, 
who  declared  he  had  lost  more  at  Capua  than  he  gained  at  Cannas  ? 
How  was  it  that  the  spirit  of  Protestantism  had  died  out  where  it 
had  been  raised  to  honour  and  wealth,  when  it  had  formerly 
extended  itself,  in  spite  of  opposition,  over  all  the  kingdoms  of 
Europe  ?  He  would  not  however  pursue  that  painful  theme.  For 
himself,  at  least,  he  must  say,  that  he  did  not  conceive  that  there 
could  be  any  marvellous  advantage  to  the  cause  of  Protestantism, 
by  the  retention  of  the  sees  which  the  Bill  proposed  to  dispense 
with  hereafter.  If  Protestantism  depended  upon  sees,  there  would 
not  be  a  Presbyterian  in  Ulster,  nor  a  Catholic  in  Connaught.  It 
was  time  that  they  should  try  new  councils,  and  that  they  should 
remove  the  grievances  of  the  Dissenters,  and  restore  peace  to 
Ireland,  and  its  just  and  proper  powers  to  the  Protestant  Church. 


VOL.  I.  11 


242 


THE  EAST-INDIA  COMPANY'S  CHARTER  BILL  * 
JULY  10,  1833. 

HAVING,  while  this  measure  was  hi  preparation,  enjoyed  the 
fullest  and  kindest  confidence  of  my  right  hon.  friend,  agreeing 
with  him  completely  in  all  those  views  which  on  a  former  occasion 
he  so  luminously  and  eloquently  developed,  having  shared  his 
anxieties,  and  feeling  that,  in  some  degree,  I  share  his  respon 
sibility,  I  am  naturally  desirous  to  obtain  the  attention  of  the 
House  while  I  attempt  to  defend  the  principles  of  this  Bill.  I 
wish  that  I  could  promise  to  be  very  brief;  but  the  subject  is 
so  extensive  that  I  will  only  promise  to  condense  what  I  have  to 
say  as  much  as  I  can. 

I  rejoice,  Sir,  that  I  am  completely  dispensed,  by  the  turn  which 
our  debates  have  taken,  from  the  necessity  of  saying  anything  in 
favour  -of  one  part  of  our  measure — the  opening  of  the  China 
trade.  No  voice,  I  believe,  has  yet  been  raised  in  Parliament  to 
support  the  monopoly.  On  that  subject  all  public  men  of  all 
parties  seem  to  be  agreed.  The  resolution  proposed  by  the 
Ministers  has  received  the  unanimous  assent  of  both  Houses,  and 
the  approbation  of  the  whole  kingdom.  I  will  not,  therefore,  Sir, 
detain  the  House  by  vindicating  a  measure  which  no  gentleman 
has  yet  ventured  to  attack,  but  will  proceed  to  call  your  attention 
to  those  effects  which  this  great  commercial  revolution  necessarily 
produced  on  the  system  of  Indian  government  and  finance. 

The  China  Trade  is  to  be  opened  :  reason  requires  this — public 
opinion  requires  it.  The  Government  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  xix.  p.  503-536. 


EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S   CHARTER   BILL.  243 

felt  the  necessity  as  strongly  as  the  Government  of  Lord  Grey.  No 
Minister,  Whig  or  Tory,  could  have  been  found  to  propose*  a 
renewal  of  the  monopoly ;  no  parliament,  reformed  or  unreformed, 
would  have  listened  to  such  a  proposal. — But  though  the  opening 
of  the  trade  was  a  matter  concerning  which  1j^e  public  had  long 
made  up  its  mind,  the  political  consequences  which  necessarily 
follow  from  the  opening  of  the  trade,  seem  to  me  to  be  even  now 
little  understood.  The  language  which  I  have  heard  in  almost 
every  circle  where  the  subject  was  discussed  was  this  :  "  Take 
away  the  monopoly,  and  leave  the  government  of  India  to  the 
Company : "  a  very  short  and  convenient  way  of  settling  one  of 
the  most  complicated  questions  that  ever  a  Legislature  had  to 
consider.  The  hon.  member  for  Sheffield,  though  not  disposed  to 
retain  the  Company  as  an  organ  of  government,  has  repeatedly 
used  language  which  proves  that  he  shares  in  the  general  miscon 
ception.  The  fact  is,  that  the  abolition  of  the  monopoly  rendered 
it  absolutely  necessary  to  make  a  fundamental  change  in  the 
constitution  of  that  great  Corporation. 

The  Company  had  united  in  itself  two  characters ;  the  character 
of  trader  and  the  character  of  sovereign.  Between  the  trader  and 
the  sovereign  there  was  a  long  and  complicated  account,  almost 
every  item  of  which  furnished  matter  for  litigation.  While  the 
monopoly  continued,  indeed,  litigation  was  averted.  .The  effect  of 
the  monopoly  was,  to  satisfy  the  claims  both  of  commerce  and  of 
territory,  at  the  expense  of  a  third  party — the  English  people ;  to 
secure  on  the  one  hand  funds  for  the  dividend  of  the  stock-holder, 
and  on  the  other  hand,  funds  for  the  government  of  the  Indian 
Empire,  by  means  of  a  heavy  tax  on  the  tea  consumed  in  this 
country.  But  when  the  third  party  would  no  longer  bear  this 
charge,  all  the  great  financial  questions  which  had,  at  the  cost  of 
that  third  party,  been  kept  in  abeyance,  were  opened  in  an  instant. 
The  connexion  between  the  Company  in  its  mercantile  capacity,  and 
the  same  Company  in  its  political  capacity,  was  dissolved.  The  sove- 


244  EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL. 

reign  and  the  trader,  from  partners,  became  litigants.  Even  if  the 
Company  were  permitted,  as  has  been  suggested,  to  govern  India 
and  at  the  same  time  to  trade  with  China,  it  would  make  no 
advances  from  the  profits  of  its  Chinese  trade  for  the  support  of  its 
Indian  government  It  was  in  consideration  of  its  exclusive 
privilege,  that  it  had  hitherto  been  required  to  make  those 
advances ; — it  was  by  the  exclusive  privilege  that  it  had  been 
enabled  to  make  them.  When  that  privilege  was  taken  away 
it  would  be  unreasonable  in  the  Legislature  to  impose  such  an 
obligation,  and  impossible  for  the  Company  io  fulfil  it.  The  whole 
system  of  loans  from  commerce  to  territory,  and  repayments  from 
territory  to  commerce,  must  cease.  Each  party  must  rest  altogether 
on  its  own  resources.  It  was,  therefore,  absolutely  necessary  to 
ascertain  what  resources  each  party  possessed,  to  bring  the  long 
and  intricate  account  between  them  to  a  close,  and  to  assign  to 
each  a  fair  portion  of  assets  and  liabilities.  There  was  vast 
property.  How  much  of  that  property  was  applicable  to  purposes 
of  state  ?  How  much  was  applicable  to  a  dividend  ?  There  were 
debts  to  the  amount  of  many  millions.  Which  of  these  were  the 
debts  of  the  government  that  ruled  at  Calcutta?  Which  of  the 
great  mercantile  house  that  brought  tea  at  Canton?  Were  the 
creditors  to  look  to  the  land  revenues  of  India  for  their  money ;  or 
were  they  entitled  to  put  executions  into  the  warehouses  behind 
Bishopsgate-street  ?' 

There  were  two  ways  of  settling  these  questions — adjudication, 
and  compromise.  The  difficulties  of  adjudication  were  great — I 
think  insuperable.  Whatever  acuteness  and  diligence  could  do, 
has  been  done.  One  person  in  particular  whose  talents  and 
industry  peculiarly  fitted  him  for  such  investigations,  and  of  whom 
I  can  never  think  without  regret,  Mr.  Villiers,  devoted  himself  to 
the  examination  with  an  ardour  and  a  perseverance  which,  I 
believe,  shortened  a  life  most  valuable  to  his  country  and  to 
his  friends.  The  assistance  of  the  most  skilful  accountants  has 


EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL.  245 

\ 
been  called  in.     But  the  difficulties  are  such  as  no  accountant, 

however  skilful,  could  possibly  remove.  The  difficulties  are  not 
arithmetical,  but  political.  They  arise  from  the  constitution  of  the 
Company,  from  the  long  and  intimate  union  of  the  commercial  and 
imperial  characters  in  one  body.  Suppose  that  a  gentleman  who  is 
the  treasurer  of  a  charity,  were  to  mix  up  the  money  which  he 
receives  on  account  of  the  charity  with  his  own  private  rents  and 
dividends,  to  pay  the  whole  into  his  bank  to  his  own  private 
account,  to  draw  it  out  again  by  checks  in  exactly  the  same  form 
when  he  wants  it  for  his  private  expenses,  and  when  he  wants  it 
for  the  purposes  of  his  public  trust.  Suppose  that  he  were  to 
continue  to  act  thus  till  he  was  himself  ignorant  whether  he  were 
in  advance  or  in  arrear ;  and  suppose  that  many  years  after  his 
death  a  question  were  to  arise  whether  his  estate  were  in  debt  to  • 
the  charity  or  the  charity  in  debt  to  his  estate.  Such  is  the  question 
which  is  now  before  us— with  this  important  difference:  that  the 
accounts  of  an  individual  could  not  be  in  such  a  state  unless  he  had 
been  guilty  of  fraud,  or  of  that  crasaa  negligentia  which  is  scarcely 
less  culpable  than  fraud,  and  that  the  accounts  of  the  Company 
were  brought  into  this  state  by  circumstances  of  a  very  peculiar 
kind — by  circumstances  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  Company  was  a  merely 
commercial  body  till  the  middle  of  the  last  century.  Commerce 
was  its  object ;  but  in  order  to  enable  it  to  pursue  that  object,  it 
had  been,  like  the  other  Indian  Companies  which  were  its  rivals, 
like  the  Dutch  India  Company,  like  the  French  India  Company, 
invested  from  a  very  early  period  with  political  functions.  More 
than  120  years  ago,  it  was  in  miniature  precisely  what  it  now  is.  It 
was  intrusted  with  the  very  highest  prerogatives  of  sovereignty.  It 
had  its  forts  and  its  white  captains,  and  its  black  sepoys — it  had  its 
civil  and  criminal  tribunals — it  was  authorised  to  proclaim  Martial- 
law — it  sent  ambassadors  to  the  native  governments,  and  concluded 
treaties  with  them — it  was  Zemindar  of  several  districts,  and 


246  EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER    BILL. 

within  those  districts,  like  other  Zemindars  of  the  first  class,  it 
exercised  the  powers  of  a  sovereign,  even  to  the  infliction  of  capital 
punishment  on  the  Hindoos  within  its  jurisdiction.  It  is  incorrect, 
therefore,  to  say,  that  the  Company  was  at  first  a  mere  trader,  and 
has  since  become  a  sovereign.  It  was  first  a  great  trader  and 
a  petty  prince.  Its  political  functions  at  first  attracted  little 
notice,  because  they  were  merely  auxiliary  to  its  commercial 
functions.  Soon,  however,  they  became  more  and  more  important. 
The  Zemindar  became  a  great  nabob,  became  sovereign  of  all  India 
— the  200  sepoys  became  200,000.  This  change  was  gradually 
wrought,  and  was  not  immediately  comprehended.  It  was  natural, 
that  while  the  political  functions  of  the  Company  were  merely 
auxiliary  to  its  commerce,  its  political  accounts  should  be  mixed  up 
with  its  commercial  accounts.  It  was  equally  natural,  that  when 
once  this  mode  of  keeping  accounts  had  been  commenced,  it  should 
go  on  ;  and  the  more  so,  as  the  change  in  the  situation  of  the 
Company,  though  rapid,  was  not  sudden.  It  is  impossible  to  fix 
on  any  one  day,  or  any  one  year,  as  the  day  or  the  year  when  the 
Company  became  a  great  potentate.  It  has  been  the  fashion 
to  fix  on  the  year  1765,  the  year  in  which  the  Company  received 
from  the  Mogul  a  Commission  authorising  them  to  administer 
the  revenues  of  Bengal,  Bahar,  and  Orissa,  as  the  precise  date  of 
their  sovereignty.  I  am  utterly  at  a  loss  to  understand  why  this 
period  should  be  selected.  Long  before  1765  the  Company  had 
the  reality  of  political  power.  Long  before  that  year,  they  made 
a  nabob  of  Arcot;  they  made  and  unmade  nabobs  of  Bengal; 
they  humbled  the  vizier  of  Oude ;  they  braved  the  emperor  of 
Hindostan  himself.  More  than  half  the  revenues  of  Bengal,  as 
Lord  Clive  stated,  were  under  one  pretence  or  another  administered 
by  them.  And  after  the  grant,  the  Company  was  not,  in  form 
and  name,  an  independent  power.  It  was  merely  a  minister  of 
the  Court  of  Delhi.  Its  coinage  bore  the  name  of  Shah  Alum. 
The  inscription  which,  till  the  time  of  Lord  Hastings,  appeared  on 


EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER    BILL.  247 

the  seal  of  the  Governor  General,  declared  that  great  functionary  to 
l>e  the  slave  of  the  Mogul.  Even  to  this  day,  we  have  never 
formally  deposed  the  king  of  Delhi.  The  Company  contents  itself 
with  being  Mayor  of  the  palace,  while  the  roi  faineant  is  suffered  to 
play  at  being  a  sovereign.  In  fact,  it  was  considered,  both  by 
Lord  Olive  and  by  Warren  Hastings,  as  a  point  of  policy  to  leave 
the  character  of  the  Company  thus  undefined,  in  order  that  the 
English  might  treat  the  princes  in  whose  names  they  governed  as 
realities  or  nonentities,  just  as  might  be  most  convenient. 

Thus  the  transformation  of  the  Company  from  a  trading  body, 
which  possessed  some  sovereign  prerogatives  for  the  purposes  of 
trade,  into  a  sovereign  body,  the  trade  of  which  was  auxiliary  to . 
its  sovereignty,  was  effected  by  degrees,  and  under  disguise.  It  is 
not  strange,  therefore,  that  its  mercantile  and  political  transactions 
should  be  entangled  together  in  inextricable  complication.  The 
commercial  investments  had  been  purchased  out  of  the  revenues 
of  the  empire.  The  expenses  of  war  and  government  had  been 
defrayed  out  of  the  profits  of  the  trade.  Commerce  and  territory 
had  contributed  to  the  improvement  of  the  same  spot  of  land,  to 
the  repairs  of  the  same  building.  Securities  had  been  given  in 
precisely  the  same  form,  for  money  which  had  been  borrowed  for 
purposes  of  State,  and  for  money  which  had  been  borrowed  for 
purposes  of  traffic.  It  is  easy,  indeed, — and  this  is  a  circumstance 
which  has,  I  think,  misled  some  Gentlemen, — it  is  easy  to  see 
what  part  of  the  assets  of  the  Company  appears  in  a  commercial 
form,  and  what  part  appears  in  a  political  or  territorial  form.  But 
this  is  not  the  question.  Assets  which  are  commercial  in  form, 
may  be  territorial  as  respects  the  right  of  property  ;  assets  which 
are  territorial  in  form,  may  be  commercial  as  respects  the  right  of 
property.  A  chest  of  tea  is  not  necessarily  commercial  property ; 
it  may  have  been  bought  out  of  the  territorial  revenue.  A  fort  is 
not  necessarily  territorial  property ;  it  may  stand  on  ground  which 
the  Company  bought  100  years  ago  out  of  their  commercial  profits. 


248  EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER    BILL. 

Adjudication,  if  by  adjudication  be  meant  decision  according  to 
some  known  rule  of  law,  was  out  of  the  question.  To  leave 
matters  like  these  to  be  determined  by  the  ordinary  maxims  of  our 
civil  jurisprudence  would  have  been  the  height  of  absurdity  and 
injustice.  For  example,  the  home-bond  debt  of  the  Company,  it  is 
believed,  was  incurred  partly  for  political,  and  partly  for  commercial 
purposes.  But  there  is  no  evidence  which  would  enable  us  to 
assign  to  each  branch  its  proper  share.  The  bonds  all  run  in  the 
same  form  ;  and  a  Court  of  Justice  would,  therefore,  of  course 
either  lay  the  whole  burthen  on  the  proprietors,  or  lay  the  whole 
on  the  territory.  We  have  legal  opinions,  very  respectable  legal 
opinions,  to  the  effect,  that  in  strictness  of  law,  the  territory  is  not 
responsible,  and  that  the  commercial  assets  are  responsible  for 
every  farthing  of  the  debts  which  were  incurred  for  the  government 
and  defence  of  India,  But,  though  this  may  be,  and  I  believe,  is 
law,  it  is,  I  am  sure,  neither  reason  nor  justice.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  urged  by  the  advocates  of  the  Company,  that  some 
valuable  portions  of  the  territory  are  the  property  of  that  body  in 
its  commercial  capacity  ;  that  Calcutta,  for  example,  is  their  private 
estate,  though  they  have,  during  many  years,  suffered  its  revenues 
to  merge  in  the  general  revenues  of  their  empire,  that  they  hold 
the  island  of  Bombay,  in  free  and  common  socage,  as  of  the  Manor 
of  East  Greenwich.  I  will  not  pronounce  any  opinion  on  these 
points.  I  have  considered  them  enough  to  see,  that  there  is  quite 
difficulty  enough  in  them  to  exercise  all  the  ingenuity  of  all  the 
lawyers  in  the  kingdom  for  twenty  years.  But  the  fact  is,  Sir,  that 
the  municipal  law  was  not  made  for  controversies  of  this  description. 
The  existence  of  such  a  body  as  this  gigantic  corporation — this 
political  monster  of  two  natures — subject  in  one  hemisphere, 
sovereign  in  another — had  never  been  contemplated  by  the 
Legislators  or  Judges  of -former  ages.  Nothing  but  grotesque 
absurdity  and  atrocious  injustice  could  have  been  the  effect,  if  the 
claims  and  liabilities  of  such  a  body  had  been  settled  according  to 


EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL.  249 

the  rules  of  Westminster  Hall — if  the  maxims  of  conveyancers  had 
been  applied  to  the  titles  by  which  flourishing  cities  and  provinces 
are  held,  or  the  maxims  of  the  law-merchant  to  those  promissory 
notes  which  are  the  securities  for  a  great  National  Debt,  raised  for 
the  purpose  of  exterminating  the  Pindarrees,  and  humbling  the 
Burmese. 

It  was,  as  I  have  said,  absolutely  impossible  to  bring  the  question 
between  commerce  and  territory  to  a  satisfactory  adjudication  ; 
and,  I  must  add,  that,  even  if  the  difficulties  which  I  have 
mentioned  could  have  been  surmounted — even  if  there  had  been 
reason  to  hope  that  a  satisfactory  adjudication  could  have  been 
obtained — I  should  still  have  wished  to  avoid  that  course.  I  think 
it  desirable  that  the  Company  should  continue  to  have  a  share  in 
the  government  of  India;  and  it  would  evidently  have  been 
impossible,  pending  a  litigation  between  commerce  and  territory, 
to  leave  any  political  power  to  the  Company.  It  would  clearly 
have  been  the  duty  of  those  who  were  charged  with  the  super 
intendence  of  India,  to  be  the  patrons  of  India  throughout  that 
momentous  litigation,  to  scrutinize  with  the  utmost  seventy,  every 
claim  which  might  be  made  on  the  Indian  revenues,  and  to  oppose, 
with  energy  and  perseverance,  every  such  claim,  unless  its  justice 
were  manifest.  If  the  Company  was  to  be  engaged  in  a  suit  for 
many  millions,  in  a  suit  which  might  last  for  many  years,  against 
the  Indian  territory,  could  we  intrust  the  Company  with  the 
government  of  that  territory  ?  Could  we  put  the  plaintiff  in  the 
situation  of  prochain  ami  of  the  defendant  ?  Could  we  appoint 
governors  who  would  have  had  an  interest  opposed  in  the  most 
direct  manner  to  the  interest  of  the  governed,  whose  stock  would 
have  been  raised  in  value  by  every  decision  which  added  to  the 
burthens  of  their  subjects,  and  depressed  by  every  decision  which 
diminished  those  burthens  ?  It  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that 
they  would  efficiently  defend  our  Indian  Empire  against  the  claims 

which  they  were  themselves  bringing  against  it ;    and  it  would  be 

* 


250  EAST-INDIA 

equally  absurd  to  give  the  government  of  the  Indian  empire  at  such 
a  conjuncture  to  those  who  could  not  b'e  trusted  to  defend  it. 

Seeing,  then,  that  it  was  most  difficult,  if  not  wholly  impossible, 
to  resort  to  adjudication  between  commerce  and  territory — seeing, 
that  if  recourse  were  had  to  adjudication,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
make  a  complete  revolution  in  the  whole  constitution  of  India — the 
Government  proposed  a  compromise.  That  compromise,  with 
some  modifications  which  did  not,  in  the  slightest  degree,  affect 
its  principle,  and  which,  while  they  gave  satisfaction  to  the 
Company,  will  eventually  lay  no  additional  burthen  on  the 
territory,  has  been  accepted.  It  has,  like  all  other  compromises, 
been  loudly  censured  by  violent  partisans  on  both  sides.  It  has 
been  represented  by  some  as  far  too  favourable  to  the  Company, 
and  by  others  as  most  unjust  to  the  Company.  Sir,  I  own  that 
we  cannot  prove  that  either  of  these  accusations  is  unfounded. 
It  is  of  the  very  essence  of  our  case  that  we  should  not  be  able 
to  show,  that  we  have  assigned,  either  to  commerce  or  to  territory, 
its  precise  due.  For  our  principal  reason  for  recommending  a 
compromise  was  our  full  conviction  that  it  was  absolutely  impossible 
to  ascertain  with  precision  what  was  due  to  commerce,  and  what 
was  due  to  territory.  It  is  not  strange  that  some  people  should 
accuse  us  of  robbing  the  Company,  and  others  of  conferring  a  vast 
boon  on  the  Company,  at  the  expense  of  India  :  for  we  have 
proposed  a  middle  course,  on  the  very  ground  that  there  was  a 
chance  of  a  result  much  more  favourable  to  the  Company  than  our 
arrangement,  and  a  chance  also  of  a  result  much  less  favourable.  If 
the  questions  pending  between  the  Company  and  India  had  been 
decided  as  the  ardent  supporters  of  the  Company  predicted,  India 
would,  if  I  calculate  rightly,  have  paid  eleven  millions  more  than 
she  will  now  have  to  pay.  If  those  questions  had  been  decided,  as 
some  violent  enemies  of  the  Company  predicted,  that  great  body 
would  have  been  utterly  ruined.  The  very  meaning  of  compromise 
is,  that  each  party  gives  up  his  chance  of  complete  success,  in  order 


•    EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL.  251 

to  be  secured  against  the  chance  of  utter  failure.  And  as  men  of 
sanguine  ininds  always  overrate  the  chances  in  their  own  favour, 
every  fair  compromise  is  sure  to  be  severely  censured  on  both 
sides.  I  contend,  that  in  a  case  so  dark  and  complicated  as  this, 
the  compromise  which  we  recommend  is  sufficiently  vindicated,  if 
it  cannot  be  proved  to  be  unfair.  We  are  not  bound  to  prove  it  to 
be  fair.  For  it  would  have  been  unnecessary  for  us  to  resort  to 
compromise  at  all,  if  we  had  been  in  possession  of  evidence  which 
would  have  enabled  us  to  pronounce,  with  certainty,  what  claims 
were  fair,  and  what  were  unfair.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  have 
acted  with  due  consideration  for  every  party.  The  dividend  which 
we  give  to  the  proprietors  is  precisely  the  same  dividend  which  they 
have  been  receiving  for  forty  years,  and  which  they  have  expected 
to  receive  permanently.  The  price  of  their  stock  bears  at  present 
the  same  proportion  to  the  price  of  other  stock  which  it  bore  four 
or  five  years  ago,  before  the  anxiety  and  excitement  which  a 
negotiation  for  a  renewal  of  their  Charter  naturally  produces,  had 
begun  to  operate.  As  to  the  territory  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  true, 
that  if  the  assets  which  are  now  in  a  commercial  form,  should  not 
produce  a  fund  sufficient  to  pay  the  debts  and  dividend  of  the 
Company,  the  territory  must  stand  to  the  loss,  and  pay  the 
difference.  But  in  return- for  taking  this  risk,  the  territory  obtains 
an  immediate  release  from  claims  to  the  amount  of  many  millions. 
I  certainly  do  not  believe  that  all  those  claims  could  have  been 
substantiated ;  but  I  know  that  very  able  men  think  differently. 
And  suppose  that  only  one-fourth  of  the  sum  demanded  had  been 
awarded  to  the  Company,  India  would  have  lost  more  than  the 
largest  sum  which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  she  can  possibly  lose  under 
the  arrangement. 

In  a  pecuniary  point  of  view,  therefore,  I  conceive  that  we  can 
defend  the  measure  as  it  affects  the  territory.  But  to  the  territory, 
the  pecuniary  question, is  of  secondary  importance.  If  we  have 
made  a  good  pecuniary  bargain  for  India,  but  a  bad  political 


252  ^EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL. 

bargain — if  we  have  saved  three  or  four  millions  to  the  finances  of 
that  country,  and  given  to  it,  at  the  same  time,  pernicious  institu 
tions,  we  shall,  indeed,  have  been  practising  a  most  ruinous 
parsimony.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  shall  be  found  that  we  have 
added  fifty  or  a  hundred  thousand  pounds  a-year  to  the  expenditure 
of  an  empire  which  yields  a  revenue  of  twenty  millions,  but  that 
we  have  at  the  same  time  secured  to  that  empire,  as  far  as  in  us 
lies,  the  blessings  of  good  government,  we  shall  have  no  reason  to 
be  ashamed  of  our  profusion.  I  hope  and  believe  that  India  will 
have  to  pay  nothing.  But  on  the  most  unfavourable  supposition 
that  can  be  made,  she  will  not  have  to  pay  so  much  to  the 
Company,  as  she  now  pays  annually  to  a  single  state  pageant — to 
the  titular  Nabob  of  Bengal,  for  example,  or  the  titular  King  of 
Delhi.  What  she  pays  to  these  nominal  princes,  who,  while  they 
did  anything,  did  mischief,  and  who  now  do  nothing,  she  may 
well  submit  to  pay  to  her  real  rulers,  if  she  receives  from  them,  in 
return,  efficient  protection,  and  good  legislation. 

We  come  then  to  the  great  question.  Is  it  desirable  to  retain 
the  Company  as  an  organ  of  government  for  India  ?  I  think  that 
it  is  desirable.  The  question  is,  I  acknowledge,  beset  with 
difficulties.  We  have  to  solve  one  of  the  hardest  problems  in 
politics.  We  are  trying  to  make  brick  without  straw — to  bring  a 
clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean — to  give  a  good  government  to  a 
people  to  whom  we  cannot  give  a  free  government.  In  this 
country — in  any  neighbouring  country — it  is  easy  to  frame 
securities  against  oppression.  In  Europe,  you  have  the  materials 
of  good  government  every  where  ready  to  your  hands.  The 
people  are  every  where  perfectly  competent  to  hold  some  share, — 
not  in  every  country  an  equal  share — but  some  share  of  political 
power.  If  the  question  were,  what  is  the  best  mode  of  securing 
good  government  in  Europe,  the  merest  smatterer  in  politics  would 
answer — representative  institutions.  In  India,  you  cannot  have 
representative  institutions.  Of  all  the  innumerable  speculators  who 


EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL.  253 

have  offered  their  suggestions  on  Indian  politics,  not  a  single  one, 
as  far  as  I  know,  however  democratical  his  opinions  may  be,  has 
ever  maintained  the  possibility  of  giving,  at  the  present  time, 
such  institutions  to  India.  One  gentleman,  extremely  well  ac 
quainted  with  the  affairs  of  our  Eastern  Empire,  a  most  valuable 
servant  of  the  Company,  and  the  author  of  a  History  of  India, 
which,  though  certainly  not  free  from  faults,  is,  I  think,  on 
the  whole,  the  greatest  historical  work  which  has  appeared  in 
our  language  since  that  of  Gibbon — I  mean  Mr.  Mill — was 
examined  on  this  point.  That  gentleman  is  well  known  to  be 
a  very  bold  and  uncompromising  politician.  He  has  written 
strongly — far  too  strongly,  I  think,  in  favour  of  pure  democracy. 
He  has  gone  so  far  as  to  maintain,  that  no  nation  which  has  not  a 
representative  legislature,  chosen  by  universal  suffrage,  enjoys 
security  against  oppression.  But  when  he  was  asked  before  the 
Committee  of  last  year,  whether  lie  thought  representative  govern 
ment  practicable  in  India,  his  answer  was — "  utterly  out  of  the 
question."  This,  then,  is  the  state  in  which  we  are.  We  have  to 
frame  a  good  government  for  a  country  into  which,  by  universal 
acknowledgment,  we  cannot  introduce  those  institutions  which  all 
our  habits — which  all  the  reasonings  of  European  philosophers  — 
which  all  the  history  of  our  own  part  of  the  world  would  lead  us 
to  consider  as  the  one  great  security  for  good  government.  We 
have  to  engraft  on  despotism  those  blessings  which  are  the  natural 
fruits  of  liberty.  In  these  circumstances,  Sir,  it  behoves  us  to  be 
cautious,  even  to  the  verge  of  timidity.  The  light  of  political 
science  and  of  history  are  withdrawn — we  are  walking  in  darkness 
— we  do  not  distinctly  see  whither  we  are  going.  It  is  the  wisdom 
of  a  man,  so  situated,  to  feel  his  way,  and  not  to  plant  his  foot  till 
he  is  well  assured  that  the  ground  before  him  is  firm. 

Some  things,  however,  in  the  midst  of  this  obscurity,  I  can  see 
with  clearness.  I  can  see,  for  example,  that  it  is  desirable  that  the 
authority  exercised  in  this  country  over  the  Indian  government 


254 

should  be  divided  between  two  bodies — between  a  minister  on  a 
board  appointed  by  the  Crown,  and  some  other  body  independent 
of  the  Crown.  If  India  is  to  be  a  dependency  of  England — to  be 
at  war  with  our  enemies — to  be  at  peace  with  our  allies — to  be 
protected  by  the  English  nav»y  from  maritime  aggression — to  have 
a  portion  of  the  English  army  mixed  with  its  sepoys — it  plainly 
follows,  that  the  King,  to  whom  the  Constitution  gives  the 
direction  of  foreign  affairs,  and  the  command  of  the  military  and 
naval  forces,  ought  to  have  a  share  in  the  direction  of  the  Indian 
government.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  that  a  revenue  of  twenty 
millions  a  year — an  army  of  two  hundred  thousand  men — a  civil 
service  abounding  with  lucrative  situations — should  be  left  to  the 
disposal  of  the  Crown  without  any  check  whatever,  is  what  no  mi 
nister,  I  conceive,  would  venture  to  propose.  This  House  is  indeed 
the  check  provided  by  the  Constitution  on  the  abuse  of  the  Royal 
prerogative.  But  that  this  House  is,  or  is  likely  ever  to  be,  an  effi 
cient  check  on  abuses  practised  in  India,  I  altogether  deny.  We 
have,  as  I  believe  we  all  feel,  quite  business  enough.  If  we  were  to 
undertake  the  task  of  looking  into  Indian  affairs  as  we  look  into 
British  affairs — if  we  were  to  have  Indian  budgets  and  Indian 
estimates — if  we  were  to  go  into  the  Indian  currency  question  and 
the  Indian  Bank  Charter — if  to  our  disputes  about  Belgium  and 
Holland,  Don  Pedro  and  Don  Miguel,  were  to  be  added  disputes 
about  the  debts  of  the  Guicowar  and  the  disorders  of  Mysore,  the 
ex-king  of  the  Afghans  and  the  Maha-rajah  Runjeet  Sing — if  we 
were  to  have  one  night  occupied  by  the  embezzlements  of  the 
Benares  mint,  and  another  by  the  panic  in  the  Calcutta  money- 
market — if  the  questions  of  Suttee  or  no  Suttee,  Pilgrim  tax  or  no 
Pilgrim  tax,  Ryotwary  or  Zemindary,  half  Batta  or  whole  Batta, 
were  to  be  debated  at  the  same  length  at  which  we  have  debated 
Church  reform  and  the  assessed  taxes,  twenty-four  hours  a  day 
and  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  days  a  year  would  be  too  short  a 
time  for  the  discharge  of  our  duties.  The  House,  it  is  plain,  has 


255 

not  the  necessary  time  to  settle  these  matters ;  nor  has  it  the 
necessary  knowledge,  nor  has  it  the  motives  to  acquire  that  know 
ledge.  The  late  change  in  its  constitution  has  made  it,  I  believe,  a 
much  more  faithful  representation  of  the  English  people.  But  it  is 
far  as  ever  from  being  a  representation  of  the  Indian  people.  A 
broken  head  in  Cold  Bath  Fields  produces  a  greater  sensation 
among  us  than  three  pitched  battles  in  India.  A  few  weeks  ago 
we  had  to  decide  on  a  claim  brought  by  an  individual  against  the 
revenues  of  India.  If  it  had  been  an  English  question  the  walls 
would  scarcely  have  held  the  Members  who  would  have  flocked  to 
the  division.  It  was  an  Indian  question  ;  and  we  could  scarcely  by 
dint  of  supplication  make  a  House.  Even  when  my  right  hon. 
friend,  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Control,  made  his  most  able 
and  interesting  statement  of  the  measures  which  he  intended 
to  propose  for  the  government  of  a  hundred  millions  of  human 
beings,  the  attendance  was  not  so  large  as  I  have  seen  it  on  a 
turnpike-bill  or  a  railroad  bill. 

I  then  take  these  things  as  proved,  that  the  Crown  must  have  a 
certain  authority  over  India,  that  there  must  be  an  efficient  check 
on  the  authority  of  the  Crown,  and  that  the  House  of  Commons  is 
not  an  efficient  check.  We  must  then  find  some  other  body  to 
perform  that  important  office.  We  have  such  a  body — the 
Company.  Shall  we  discard  it  ? 

•  It  is  true  that  the  power  of  the  Company  is  an  anomaly  in 
politics.  It  is  strange — very  strange — that  a  Joint-stock  society 
of  traders — a  society,  the  shares  of  which  are  daily  passed  from 
hand  to  hand — a  society,  the  component  parts  of  which  are 
perpetually  changing — a  society,  which,  judging  a  priori  from  its 
constitution,  we  should  have  said  was  as  little  fitted  for  imperial 
functions  as  the  Merchant  Tailors'  Company  or  the  New  River 
Company — should  be  intrusted  with  the  sovereignty  of  a  larger 
population,  the  disposal  of  a  larger  clear  revenue,  the  command  of 
a  larger  army,  than  are  under  the  direct  management  of  the 


256 

Executive  Government  of  the  United  Kingdom.  But  what  con 
stitution  can  we  give  to  our  Indian  Empire  which  shall  not  be 
strange — which  shall  not  be  anomalous  ?  That  Empire  is  itself  the 
strangest  of  all  political  anomalies.  That  a  handful  of  adventurers 
from  an  island  in  the  Atlantic  should  have  subjugated  a  vast 
country  divided  from  the  place  of  their  birth  by  half  the  globe — a 
country  which  at  no  very  distant  period  was  merely  the  subject  of 
fable  to  the  nations  of  Europe — a  country  never  before  violated  by 
the  most  renowned  of  Western  Conquerors — a  country  which 
Trajan  never  entered — a  country  lying  beyond  the  point  where  the 
phalanx  of  Alexander  refused  to  proceed  ; — that  we  should  govern 
a  territory  10,000  miles  from  us — a  territory  larger  and  more 
populous  than  France,  Spain,  Italy,  and  Germany  put  together — a 
territory,  the  present  clear  revenue  of  which  exceeds  the  present 
clear  revenue  of  any  state  in  the  world,  France  excepted — a 
territory,  inhabited  by  men,  differing  from  us  in  race,  colour, 
language,  manners,  morals,  religion ; — these  are  prodigies  to 
which  the  world  has  seen  nothing  similar.  Reason  is  confounded. 
We  interrogate  the  past  in  vain.  General  rules  are  almost  useless 
where  the  whole  is  one  vast  exception.  The  Company  is  an 
anomaly  ;  but  it  is  part  of  a  system  where  every  thing  is  anomaly. 
It  is  the  strangest  of  all  governments :  but  it  is  designed  for  the 
strangest  of  all  Empires. 

If  we  discard  the  Company,  we  must  find  a  substitute  :  and, 
take  what  substitute  we  may,  we  shall  find  ourselves  unable  to 
give  any  reason  for  believing  that  the  body  which  we  have  put  in 
the  room  of  the  Company  is  likely  to  acquit  itself  of  its  duties 
better  than  the  Company.  Commissioners  appointed  by  the  King 
during  pleasure  would  be  no  check  on  the  Crown  ;  Commissioners 
appointed  by  the  King  or  by  Parliament  for  life,  would  always  be 
appointed  by  the  political  party  which  might  be  uppermost,  and  if 
a  change  of  Administration  took  place,  would  harass  the  new 
Government  with  the  most  vexatious  opposition.  The  plan 


EAST-INDIA     COMPANY  S     CHARTER     BILL.  257 

suggested  by  the  right  honourable  Gentleman  the  member  for 
Montgomeryshire,  is  I  think  the  very  worst  that  I  have  ever  heard. 
He  would  have  Directors  nominated  every  four  years  by  the  Crown. 
Is  it  not  plain  that  these  Directors  would  always  be  appointed  from 
among  the  supporters  of  the  Ministry  for  the  time  being — that  their 
situations  would  depend  on  the  permanence  of  that  Ministry — that 
therefore  all  their  power  and  patronage  would  be  employed  for  the 
purpose  of  propping  that  Ministry,  and,  in  case  of  a  change,  for  the 
purpose  of  molesting  those  who  might  succeed  to  power — that  they 
would  be  subservient  while  their  friends*  were  in,  and  factious  when 
their  friends  were  out  ?  How  would  Lord  Grey's  Ministry  have 
been  situated  if  the  whole  body  of  Directors  had  been  nominated 
by  the  Duke  of  Wellington  in  1830  ?  I  mean  no  imputation  on 
the  Duke  of  Wellington.  If  the  present  Ministers  had  to  nominate 
Directors  for  four  years,  they  would,  I  have  no  doubt,  nominate 
men  who  would  give  no  small  trouble  to  the  Duke  of  Wellington 
if  he  were  to  return  to  office.  What  we  want  is  a  body  inde 
pendent  of  the  Government,  and  no  more  than  independent — not  a 
tool  of  the  Treasury — not  a  tool  of  the  opposition.  No  new  plan 
which  I  have  heard  proposed  would  give  us  such  a  body.  The 
Company,  strange  as  its  constitution  may  be,  is  such  a  body.  It 
is,  as  a  corporation,  neither  Whig  nor  Tory,  neither  high-church 
nor  low-church.  It  cannot  be  charged  with  having  been  for  or 
against  the  Catholic  Bill,  for  or  against  the  Reform  Bill.  It  has 
constantly  acted  with  a  view,  not  to  English  politics  but  to  Indian 
politics.  We  have  seen  the  country  convulsed  by  faction.  We 
have  seen  Ministers  driven  from  office  by  this  House — Parliament 
dissolved  iu  anger — general  elections  of  unprecedented  turbulence 
— debates  of  unprecedented  interest.  We  have  seen  the  two  branches 
of  the  Legislature  placed  in  direct  opposition  to  each  other.  We 
have  seen  the  advisers  of  the  Crown  dismissed  one  day,  and 
brought  back  the  next  day  on  the  shoulders  of  the  people.  And 
amidst  all  these  agitating  events  the  Company  has  preserved  strict 


258  EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER    BILL. 

and  unsuspected  neutrality.  This  is,  I  think,  an  inestimable  advan 
tage;  and  it  is  an  advantage  which  we  must  altogether  forego,  if 
we  consent  to  adopt  any  of  the  schemes  which  I  have  heard 
proposed  on  the  other  side  of  the  House. 

We  must  judge  of  the  Indian  government,  as  of  all  other 
governments,  by  its  practical  effects.  According  to  the  lion, 
member  for  Sheffield,  India  is  ill  governed ;  and  the  whole  fault 
is  with  the  Company.  Innumerable  accusations,  great  and  small', 
are  brought  by  him  against  their  administration.  They  are  fond 
of  war.  They  are  fond  of  dominion.  The  taxation  is  burthensome. 
The  laws  are  undigested.  The  roads  are  rough.  The  post  goes  on 
foot.  And  for  everything  the  Company  js  answerable.  From  the 
dethronement  of  the  Mogul  princes  to  the  mishaps  of  Sir  Charles 
Metcalfe's  courier,  every  disaster  that  has  taken  place  in  the  East 
during  sixty  years  is  laid  to  the  charge  of  this  unfortunate 
Corporation.  And  the  inference  is,  that  all  the  power  which 
they  possess  ought  to  be  taken  out  of  their  hands,  and  transferred 
at  once  to  the  Crown. 

Now,  Sir,  it  seems  to  me  that  for  all  the  evils  which  the  honour 
able  Gentleman  has  so  pathetically  recounted,  the  Ministers  of  the 
Crown  are  as  much  to  blame  as  the  Company — nay,  much  more  so. 
For  the  Board  of  Control  could,  without  the  consent  of  the 
Directors,  have  redressed  those  evils;  and  the  Directors  most 
certainly  could  not  have  redressed  them  without  the  consent  of  the 
Board  of  Control.  Take  the  case  of  that  frightful  grievance  which 
seems  to  have  made  the  deepest  impression  on  the  mind  of  the 
hon.  Gentleman — the  slowness  of  the  mail.  Why,  Sir,  if  my 
right  hon.  friend,  the  President  of  our  Board,  thought  fit,  he  might 
direct  me  to  write  to  the  Court  and  require  them  to  frame  a 
dispatch  on  that  subject.  If  the  Court  disobeyed,  he  might 
himself  frame  a  dispatch  ordering  Lord  William  Bentinck  to  put 
the  dawks  all  over  Bengal  on  horseback.  If  the  Court  refused  to 
send  out  this  dispatch,  the  Board  could  apply  to  the  King's  Bench 


259 

for  a  mandamus.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Directors  wished  to 
accelerate  the  journeys  of  the  mail,  and  the  Board  were  adverse  to 
the  project,  the  Directors  could  do  nothing  at  all.  For  all  measures 
of  internal  policy  the  servants  of  the  King  are  at  least  as  deeply 
responsible  as  the  Company.  For  all  measures  of  foreign  policy 
the  servants  of  the  King,  and  they  alone,  are  responsible.  I  was 
surprised  to  hear  the  hon.  Gentleman  accuse  the  Directors  of 
insatiable  ambition  and  rapacity,  when  he  must  know  that  no  act 
of  aggression  on  any  native  state  can  be  committed  by  the 
Company  without  the  sanction  of  the  Board,  and  that,  in  fact,  the 
Board  has  repeatedly  approved  of  warlike  measures,  which  were 
strenuously  opposed  by  the  Company.  He  must  know,  in  par 
ticular,  that,  during  the  energetic  and  splendid  Administration  of 
the  Marquess  "VVellesley,  the  Company  was  all  for  peace,  and  the 
Board  all  for  conquest.  If  a  line  of  conduct  which  the  hon. 
Gentleman  thinks  unjustifiable,  has  been  followed  by  the  Ministers 
of  the  Crown  in  spite  of  the  remonstrances  of  the  Directors,  this  is 
surely  a  strange  reason  for  turning  off  the  Directors,  and  giving  the 
whole  power  unchecked  to  the  Crown. 

The  hon.  Member  tells  us  that  India,  under  the  present  system, 
is  not  so  rich  and  flourishing  as  she  was  200  years  ago.  Eeally, 
Sir,  I  doubt  whether  we  are  in  possession  of  sufficient  data  to 
enable  us  to  form  a  judgment  on  that  point.  But  the  matter  is  of 
little  importance.  We  ought  to  compare  India  under  our  Govern 
ment,  not  with  India  under  Acbar  and  his  immediate  successors, 
but  with  India  as  we  found  it.  The  calamities  through  which 
that  country  passed  during  the  interval  between  the  fall  of  the 
Mogul  pow.er*  and  the  establishment  of  the  English  supremacy 
were  sufficient  to  throw  the  people  back  whole  centuries.  It 
would  surely  be  unjust  to  say,  that  Alfred  was  a  bad  king  because 
Britain,  under  his  government,  was  not  so  rich  or  so  civilized  as  in 
the  time  of  the  Romans. 

In  what  state,  then,  did  we  find  India  ?    And  what  have  we 


260  EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL. 

made  India  ?  We  found  society  throughout  that  vast  country  in  a 
state  to  which  history  scarcely  furnishes  a  parallel.  The  nearest 
parallel  would  perhaps  be  the  state  of  Europe  during  the  fifth 
century.  The  Mogul  empire  in  the  time  of  the  successors  of 
Aurungzebe,  like  the  Roman  empire  in  the  time  of  the  successors 
of  Theodosius,  was  sinking  under  the  vices  of  its  internal  adminis 
tration,  and  under  the  assaults  of  barbarous  invaders.  At  Delhi, 
as  at  Ravenna,  there  was  a  mock  sovereign,  a  mere  pageant 
immured  in  a  gorgeous  state  prison.  He  was  suffered  to  indulge 
in  every  sensual  pleasure.  He  was  adored  with  servile  prostrations. 
He  assumed  and  bestowed  the  most  magnificent  titles.  But,  in 
fact,  he  was  a  mere  puppet  in  the  hands  of  some  ambitious  subject. 
AYhile  the  Honorii  and  Augustuli  of  the  East,  surrounded  by  their 
fawning  eunuchs,  revelled  and  dozed  without  knowing  or  caring 
what  might  pass  beyond  the  walls  of  their  palace  gardens,  the 
provinces  had  ceased  to  respect  a  government  which  could  neither 
punish  nor  protect  them.  Society  was  a  chaos.  Its  restless  and 
shifting  elements  formed  themselves  every  moment  into  some  new 
combination,  which  the  next  moment  dissolved.  In  the  course  of 
a  single  generation  a  hundred  dynasties  grew  up,  flourished, 
decayed,  were  extinguished,  were  forgotten.  Every  adventurer 
who  could  muster  a  troop  of  horse  might  aspire  to  a  throne. 
Every  palace  was  every  year  the  scene  of  conspiracies,  treasons, 
revolutions,  parricides.  Meanwhile  a  rapid  succession  of  Alarics 
and  Attilas  passed  over  the  defenceless  empire.  A  Persian  invader 
penetrated  to  Delhi,  and  carried  back  in  triumph  the  most  precious 
treasures  of  the  House  of  Tamerlane.  The  Afghan  soon  followed, 
by  the  same  track,  to  glean  whatever  the  Persian  had  spared.  The 
Jauts  established  themselves  on  the  Jumna.  The  Seiks  devastated 
Lahore.  Every  part  of  India,  from  Tanjore  to  the  Himalayas,  was 
laid  under  contribution  by  the  Mahrattas.  The  people  were 
ground  down  to  the  dust  by  the  oppressor  without  and  the 
oppressor  within  ;  by  the  robber  from  whom  the  Nabob  was  unable 


EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S   CHARTER   BILL.  261 

to  protect  them,  by  the  Nabob  who  took  whatever  the  robber  had 
left  to  them.  All  the  evils  of  despotism,  and  all  the  evils  of 
anarchy,  pressed  at  once  on  that  miserable  race.  They  knew 
nothing  of  government  but  its  exactions.  Desolation  was  in  their 
imperial  cities,  and  famine  all  along  the  banks  of  their  broad  and 
redundant  rivers.  It  seemed  that  a  few  more  years  would  suffice 
to  efface  all  traces  of  the  opulence  and  civilization  of  an  earlier 
age. 

Such  was  the  state  of  India  when  the  Company  began  to  take 
part  in  the  disputes  of  its  ephemeral  sovereigns.  About  eighty 
years  have  elapsed  since  we  appeared  as  auxiliaries  in  a  contest 
between  two  rival  families  for  the  sovereignty  of  a  small  corner  of 
the  Peninsula.  From  that  moment  commenced  a  great,  a  stupen 
dous  process — the  reconstruction  of  a  decomposed  society.  Two 
generations  have  passed  away ;  and  the  process  is  complete.  The 
scattered  fragments  of  the  empire  of  Aurungzebe  have  been 
united  in  an  empire  stronger  and  more  closely  knit  together  than 
that  which  Aurungzebe  ruled.  The  power  of  the  new  sovereigns 
penetrates  their  dominions  more  completely,  and  is  far  more 
implicitly  obeyed,  than  was  that  of  the  proudest  princes  of  the 
Mogul  dynasty. 

'  It  is  true,  that  the  early  history  of  this  great  revolution  is 
chequered  with  guilt  and  shame.  It  is  true  that  the  founders  of 
our  Indian  empire  too  often  abused  the  strength  which  they  derived 
from  superior  energy  and  superior  knowledge.  It  is  true  that 
with  some  of  the  highest  qualities  of  the  race  from  which  they 
sprang,  they  combined  some  of  the  worst  defects  of  the  race  over 
which  they  ruled.  How  should  it  have  been  otherwise  ?  Born  in 
humble  stations,  accustomed  to  earn  a  slender  maintenance  by 
obscure  industry,  they  found  themselves  transformed  in  a  few 
months  from  clerks  drudging  over  desks,  or  captains  in  marching 
regiments,  into  statesmen  and  generals,  with  armies  at  their 
command,  with  the  revenues  of  kingdoms  at  their  disposal,  with 


262 

power  to  make  and  depose  sovereigns  at  •  their  pleasure.  They 
were  what  it  was  natural  that  men  should  be  who  had  been 
raised  by  so  rapid  an  ascent  to  so  dizzy  an  eminence,  profuse  and 
rapacious,  imperious  and  corrupt. 

It  is  true,  then,  that  there  was  too  much  foundation  for  the 
representations  of  those  satirists  and  dramatists  who  held  up  the 
character  of  the  English  Nabob  to  the  derision  and  hatred  of  a 
former  generation.  It  is  true  that  some  disgraceful  intrigues,  some 
unjust  and  cruel  wars,  some  instances  of  odious  perfidy  and  avarice 
stain  the  annals  of  our  Eastern  empire.  It  is  true  that  the  duties 
of  government  and  legislation  were  long  wholly  neglected  or 
carelessly  performed.  It  is  true  that  when  the  new  rulers  at  length 
began  to  apply  themselves  in  earnest  to  the  discharge  of  their 
high  functions,  they  committed  the  errors  natural  to  rulers  who 
were  but  imperfectly  acquainted  with'  the  language  and  manners 
of  their  subjects.  It  is  true  that  some  measures,  which  were 
dictated  by  the  purest  and  most  benevolent  feelings,  have  not 
been  attended  by  the  desired  success.  It  is  true  that  India  suffers 
to  this  day  from  a  heavy  burthen  of  taxation,  and  from  a  defective 
system  of  law.  It  is  true,  I  fear,  that  in  those  states  which  are 
connected  with  us  by  subsidiary  alliance,  all  the  evils  of  oriental 
despotism  have  too  frequently  shown  themselves  in  their  most 
loathsome  and  destructive  form. 

All  this  is  true.  Yet  in  the  history  and  in  the  present  state  of 
our  Indian  empire  I  see  ample  reason  for  exultation  and  for  a  good 
hope. 

I  see  that  we  have  established  order  where  we  found  confusion. 
I  see  that  the  petty  dynasties  which  were  generated  by  the 
corruption  of  the  great  Mahometan  empire,  and  which,  a  century 
ago,  kept  all  India  in  constant  agitation,  have  been  quelled  by  one 
overwhelming  power.  I  see  that  the  predatory  tribes  who,  in  the 
middle  of  the  last  century,  passed  annually  over  the  harvests  of 
India  with  the  destructive  rapidity  of  a  hurricane,  have  quailed 


EAST-INDIA     COMPANY'S     CHARTER     BILL.  263 

before  the  valour  of  a  braver  and  sterner  race — have  been  van 
quished,  scattered,  hunted  to  their  strongholds,  and  either 
exterminated  by  the  English  sword,  or  compelled  to  exchange 
the  pursuits  of  rapine  for  those  of  industry. 

I  look  back  for,  many  years ;  and  I  see  scarcely  a  trace  of  the 
vices  which  blemished  the  splendid  fame  of  the  first  conquerors  of 
Bengal.  I  see  peace  studiously  preserved.  I  see  faith  inviolably 
maintained  towards  feeble  and  dependent  states.  I  see  confidence 
gradually  infused  into  the  minds  of  suspicious  neighbours.  I  see 
the  horrors  of  war  mitigated  by  the  chivalrous  and  Christian  spirit 
of  Europe.  I  see  examples  of  moderation  and  clemency,  such  as  I 
should  seek  in  vain  in  the  annals  of  any  other  victorious  and 
dominant  nation.  I  see  captive  tyrants,  whose  treachery  and 
cruelty  might  have  excused  a  severe  retribution,  living  in  security, 
comfort,  and  dignity,  under  the  protection  of  the  government  which 
they  laboured  to  destroy. 

I  see  a  large  body  of  civil  and  military  functionaries  resembling 
in  nothing  but  capacity  and  valour  those  adventurers  who  seventy 
years  ago  came  hither,  laden  with  wealth  and  infamy,  to  parade 
before  our  fathers  the  plundered  treasures  of  Bengal  and  Tanjore. 
I  reflect  with  pride  that  to  the  doubtful  splendour  which  surrounds 
the  memory  of  Hastings  and  of  Olive,  we  can  oppose  the  spotless 
glory  of  Elphinstone  and  Monro.  I  observe  with  reverence  and 
delight  the  honourable  poverty  which  is  the  evidence  of  a  rectitude 
iirmly  maintained  amidst  strong  temptations.  I  rejoice  to  see  my 
countrymen,  after  ruling  millions  of  subjects,  after  commanding 
victorious  armies,  after  dictating  terms  of  peace  at  the  gates  of 
hostile  capitals,  after  administering  the  revenues  of  great  provinces, 
after  judging  the  causes  of  wealthy  Zemindars,  after  residing  at  the 
Courts  of  tributary  Kings,  return  to  their  native  land  with  no  more 
than  a  decent  competence. 

I  see  a  government  anxiously  bent  on  the  public  good.  Even 
in  its  errors  I  recognise  a  paternal  feeling  towards  the  great  people  < 


264  EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL. 

committed  to  its  charge.  I  see  toleration  strictly  maintained. 
Yet  I  see  bloody  and  degrading  superstitions  gradually  losing  their 
power.  I  see  the  morality,  the  philosophy,  the  taste  of  Europe, 
beginning  to  produce  a  salutary  effect  on  the  hearts  and  under 
standings  of  our  subjects.  I  see  the  public  mind  of  India,  that 
public  mind  which  we  found  debased  and  contracted  by  the  worst 
forms  of  political  and  religious  tyranny,  expanding  itself  to  just  and 
noble  views  of  the  ends  of  government  and  of  the  social  duties  of 
man. 

I  see  evils  :  but  I  see  the  government  actively  employed  in  the 
work  of  remedying  those  evils.  The  taxation  is  heavy ;  but  the 
work  of  retrenchment  is  unsparingly  pursued.  The  mischiefs 
arising  from  the  system  of  subsidiary  alliance  are  great :  but  the 
rulers  of  India  are  fully  aware  of  those  mischiefs,  and  are  engaged 
in  guarding  against  them.  Wherever  they  now  interfere  for  the 
purpose  of  supporting  a  native  government,  they  interfere  also  for 
the  purpose  of  reforming  it. 

Seeing  these  things,  then,  am  I  prepared  to  discard  the 
Company  as  an  organ  of  government  ?  I  am  not.  Assuredly  I 
will  never  shrink  from  innovation  where  I  see  reason  to  believe 
that  innovation  will  be  improvement.  That  the  present  Govern 
ment  does  not  shrink  ftom  innovations  which  it  considers  as 
improvements, "the  measure  now  before  the  House  sufficiently 
shows.  But  surely  the  burthen  of  the  proof  lies  on  the  innovators. 
They  are  bound  to  lay  some  ground ;  to  show  that  there  is  a  fair 
probability  of  obtaining  some  advantage  before  they  call  upon  us  to 
take  up  the  foundations  of  the  Indian  government.  I  have  no 
superstitious  veneration  for  the  Court  of  Directors  or  the  Court  of 
Proprietors.  Find  me  a  better  Council :  find  me  a  better  con 
stituent  body :  and  I  am  ready  for  a  change.  But  of  all  the 
substitutes  for  the  Company  which  have  hitherto  been  suggested, 
not  one  has  been  proved  to  be  better  than  the  Company  ;  and 
most  of  them  I  could,  I  think,  easily  prove  to  be  worse.  Circum- 


EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL.  iG5 

stances  might  force  us  to  hazard  a  change.  If  the  Company  were 
to  refuse  to  accept  of  the  government  .unless  we  would  grant 
pecuniary  terms  which  I  thought  extravagant,  or  unless  wt  gave 
up  the  clauses  in  this  Bill  which  .permit  Europeans  to  hold  landed 
property,  and  natives  to  hold  office,  I  would  take  them  at  their 
word.  But  I  will  not  discard  them  in  the  mere  rage  of  experi 
ment. 

Do  I  call  the  government  of  India  a  perfect  government  ?  Very 
far  from  it.  No  nation  can  be  perfectly  well  governed  till  it  is 
competent  to  govern  itself.  I  compare  the  Indian  government 
with  other  governments  of  the  same  class,  with  despotisms,  with 
military  despotisms,  with  foreign  military  despotisms  ;  and  I  find 
none  that  approaches  it  in  excellence.  I  compare  it  with  the 
government  of  the  Roman  provinces — with  the  government  of  the 
Spanish  colonies— and  I  am  proud  of  my  country  and  my  age. 
Here  are  a  hundred  millions  of  people  under  the  absolute  rule  of  a 
few  strangers,  differing  from  them  physically — differing  from  them 
morally — mere  Mamelukes,  not  born  in  the  country  which  they 
rule,  not  meaning  to  lay  their  bones  in  it.  If  you  require  me  to 
make  this  government  as  good  as  that  of  England,  France,  or  the 
United  States  of  America,  I  own  frankly  that  I  can  do  no  such 
thing.  Reasoning  a  priori,  I  should  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  such  a  government  must  be  a  horrible  tyranny.  -It  is  a  source 
of  constant  amazement  to  me  that  it  is  so  good  as  I  find  it  to  be. 
I  will  not,  therefore,  in  a  case  in  which  I  have  neither  principles 
nor  precedents  to  guide  me,  pull  down  the  existing  system  on 
account  of  its  theoretical  defects.  For  I  know  that  any  system 
which  I  could  put  in  its  place  would  be  equally  condemned  by 
theory,  while  it  would  not  be  equally  sanctioned  by  experience. 

Some  change  in  the  constitution  of  the  Company  was,  as  I  have 

shown,  rendered  inevitable  by  the  opening  of  the  China  Trade; 

and  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  take  care  that  the 

change  should  not  be  prejudicial  to  India.     There  were  many 

vou  i.  12 


288 

ways  in  which  the  compromise  between  commerce  and  territory 
might  have  been  affected.  We  might  have  taken  the  assets,  and 
paid  a  sum  down,  leaving  the  Company  to  invest  that  sum  as 
they  chose.  We  might  have  offered  English  security  with  a  lower 
interest.  We  might  have  taken  the  course  which  the  late  Govern 
ment  designed  to  take.  We  might  have  left  the  Company  in 
possession  of  the  means  of  carrying  on  its  trade  in  competition 
with  private  merchants.  My  firm  belief  is,  that,  if  this  course  had 
been  taken,  the  Company  must,  in  a  very  few  years,  have  aban 
doned  the  trade  or  the  trade  woald  have  ruined  the  Company.  It 
was  not,  however,  solely  or  principally  by  regard  for  the  interest  of 
the  Company,  or  of  the  English  merchants  generally,  that  the 
Government  was  guided  on  this  occasion.  The  course  which 
appeared  to  us  the  most  likely  to  promote  the  interests  of  our 
Eastern  Empire  was  to  make  the  proprietors  of  India  stock 
creditors  of  the  Indian  territory.  Their  interest  will  thus  be  in  a 
great  measure  the  same  with  the  interest  of  the  people  whom  they 
are  to  rule.  Their  income  will  depend  on  the  revenues  of  their 
empire.  The  revenues  of  their  empire  will  depend  on  the  manner 
in  which  the  affairs  of  that  empire  .are  administered.  We  furnish 
them  with  the  strongest  motives  to  watch  over  the  interests  of  the 
cultivator  and  the  trader,  to  maintain  peace,  to  carry  on  with 
vigour  the  work  of  retrenchment,  to  detect  and  punish  extortion 
and  corruption.  Though  they  live  at  a  distance  from  India — 
though  few  of  them  have  ever  seen  or  may  ever  see  the  people 
whom  they  rule — they  will  have  a  great  stake  in  the  happiness  of 
their -subjects.  If  their  misgovernment  should  produce  disorder  in 
the  finances,  they  will  themselves  feel  the  effects  of  that  disorder  in 
their  own  household  expenses.  I  believe  this  to  be,  next  to  a 
representative  constitution,  the  constitution  which  is  the  best 
security  for  good  government.  A  representative  constitution  India 
cannot  at  present  have.  And  we  have,  therefore,  I  think,  given  her 
the  best  constitution  of  which  she  is  capable. 


EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER    BILL.  26 1 

One  word  as  to  the  new  arrangement  which  we  propose  with 
respect  to  the  patronage.  It  is  intended  to  introduce  the  principle 
of  competition  in  the  disposal  of  writerships  ;  and  from  this  change 
I  cannot  but  anticipate  the  happiest  results.  The  civil  servants  of 
the  Company  are  undoubtedly  a  highly  respectable  body  of  men ; 
and,  in  that  body,  as  in  every  large  body,  there  are  some  persons 
of  very  eminent  ability.  I  rejoice  most  cordially  to  see  this.  I 
rejoice  to  see  that  the  standard  of  morality  is  so  high  in  England, 
that  intelligence  is  so  generally  diffused  through  England,  that 
young  persons  who  are  taken  from  the  mass  of  society,  by  favour 
and  not  by  merit,  and  who  are  therefore  only  fair  samples  of  the 
mass,  should,  when  placed  in  situations  of  high  importance,  be  so 
seldom  found  wanting.  But  it  is  not  the  less  true,  that  India  is 
entitled  to  the  service  of  the  best  talents  which  England  can  spare. 
That  the  average  pf  intelligence  and  virtue  is  very  high  in  this 
country,  is  matter  for  honest  exultation.  But  it  is  no  reason  for 
employing  average  men  where  you  can  obtain  superior  men. 
Consider  too,  Sir.  how  rapidly  the  public  mind  of  India  is 
advancing,  how  much  attention  is  already  paid  by  the  higher 
classes  of  the  natives  to  those  intellectual  pursuits  on  the  culti 
vation  of  which  the  superiority  of  the  European  race  to  the  rest  of 
mankind  principally  depends.  Surely,  under  such  circumstances, 
from  motives  of  selfish  policy,  if  from  no  higher  motive,  we  ought 
to  fill  the  Magistracies  of  our  Eastern  Empire  with  men  who  may 
do  honour  to  their  country — with  men  who  may  represent  the  best 
part  of  the  English  nation.  This,  Sir,  is  our  object ;  arid  we 
believe,  that  by  the  plan  which  is  now  proposed  this  object  will  be 
attained.  It  is  proposed  that  for  every  vacancy  in  the  civil  service 
four  candidates  shall  be  named,  and  the  best  candidate  elected  by 
examination.  We  conceive  that,  under  this  system,  the  persons 
sent  out  will  be  young  men  above  par — young  men  superior  either 
in  talents  or  in  diligence  to  the  mass.  It  is  said,  I  know,  that 
examinations  in  Latin,  in  Greek,  and  in  mathematics,  are  no  tests 


208  EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER    BILL. 

of  what  men  will  prove  to  be  in  life.  I  am  perfectly  aware,  that 
they  are  not  infallible  tests ;  but  that  they  are  tests  I  confidently 
maintain.  Look  at  every  walk  of  life — at  this  House— at  the  other 
House— at  the  Bar — at  the  Bench — at  the  Church — and  see  whether 
it  be  not  true,  that  those  who  attain  high  distinction  in  the  world  are 
generally  men  who  were  distinguished  in  their  academic  career. 
Indeed,  Sir,  this  objection  would  prove  far  too  much  even  for  those 
who  use  it.  It  would  prove,  that  there  is  no  use  at  all  in 
education.  Why  should  we  put  boys  out  of  their  way  ?  Why 
should  we  force  a  lad,  who  would  much  rather  fly  a  kite  or  trundle 
a  hoop,  to  learn  his  Latin  Grammar  ?  Why  should  we  keep  a 
young  man  to  his  Thucydides  or  his  Laplace,  when  he  would 
much  rather  be  shooting?  Education  would  be  mere  useless 
torture,  if,  at 'two  or  three  and  twenty,  a  man  who  has  neglected 
his  studies  were  exactly  on  a  par  with  a  man  who  has  applied 
himself  to  them — exactly  as  likely  to  perform  all  the  offices  of 
public  life  with  credit  to  himself  and  with  advantage  to  society. 
Whether  the  English  system  of  education  be  good  or  bad  is  not 
now  the  question.  Perhaps  I  may  think  that  too  much  time  is 
given  to  the  ancient  languages  and  to  the  abstract  sciences-.  But 
what  then  ?  Whatever  be  the  languages — whatever  be  the  sciences, 
which  it  is,  in  any  age  or  country,  the  fashion  to  teach,  those  who 
become  the  greatest  proficients  in  those  languages  and  those 
sciences,  will  generally  be  the  flower  of  the  youth — the  most  acute 
— the  most  industrious — the  most  ambitious  of  honourable  dis 
tinctions.  If  the  Ptolemaic  system  were  taught  at  Cambridge, 
instead  of  the  Newtonian,  the  senior  wrangler  would  nevertheless 
be  in  general  a  superior  man  to  the  wooden  spoon.  If,  instead  of 
learning  Greek,  we  learned  the  Cherokee,  the  man  who  understood 
the  Cherokee  best,  who  made  the  most  correct  and  melodious 
Cherokee  verses — who  comprehended  most  accurately  the  effect  of 
the  Cherokee  particles — would  generally  be  a  superior  man  to  him 
who  was  destitute  of  these  accomplishments.  If  astrology  were 


EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL.  269 

taught  at  our  Universities,  the  young  man  who  cast  nativities  best 
would  generally  turn  out  a  superior  man.  If  alchymy  were  taught, 
the  young  man  who  showed  most  activity  in  the  pursuit  of  the 
philosopher's  stone,  would  generally  turn  out  a  superior  man. 

I  will  only  add  one  other  observation  on  this  subject.  Although 
I  am  inclined  to  think  that  too  much  attention  is  paid  in  the 
education  of  English  gentlemen  to  the  dead  languages,  I  conceive, 
that  when  you  are  choosing  young  men  to  fill  situations  for  which 
the  very  first  and  most  indispensable  qualification  is  familiarity 
with  foreign  languages,  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  better  test  of 
their  fitness  than  their  classical  acquirements. 

Some  persons  have  expressed  doubts  as  to  the  possibility  of 
procuring  fair  examinations.  I  am  quite  sure,  that  no  person  who 
has  been  either  at  Cambridge  or  at  Oxford  can  entertain  such 
doubts.  I  feel,  indeed,  that  I  ought  to  apologize  for  even  noticing 
an  objection  so  frivolous. 

Next  to  the  opening  of  the  China  trade,  the  change  most  eagerly 
demanded  by  the  English  people  was,  that  the  restrictions  on  the 
admission  of  Europeans  to  India  should  be  removed.  In  this 
measure,  there  are  undoubtedly  very  great  advantages.  The  chief 
advantage  is,  I  think,  the  improvement  which  the  minds  of  our 
native  subjects  may  be  expected  to  derive  from  free  intercourse 
with  a  people  far  advanced  beyond  themselves  in  intellectual 
cultivation.  I  cannot  deny,  however,  that  the  advantages  of  this 
great  change  are  attended  with  some  danger. 

The  danger  is  that  the  new  comers,  belonging  to  the  ruling 
nation,  resembling  in  colour,  in  language,  in  manners,  those  who 
hold  supreme  military  and  political  power,  and  differing  in  all 
these  respects  from  the  great  mass  of  the  population,  may  consider 
themselves  as  a  superior  class,  and  may  trample  on  the  indigenous 
race.  Hitherto  there  have  been  strong  restraints  on  Europeans 
resident  in  India.  Licences  were  not  easily  obtained.  Those 
residents  who  were  in  the  service  of  the  Company  had  obvious 


270  EAST-INDIA 

motives  for  conducting  themselves  with  propriety.  If  they  incurred 
the  serious  displeasure  of  the  Government,  their  hopes  of  promotion 
were  blighted.  Even  those  who  were  not  in  the  public  service, 
were  subject  to  the  formidable  power  which  the  Government 
possessed  of  banishing  them  at  its  pleasure. 

The  licence  of  the  Government  will  now  no  longer  be  necessary 
to  persons  who  desire  to  reside  in  the  settled  provinces  of  India. 
The  power  of  arbitrary  deportation  is  withdrawn.  Unless,  there 
fore,  we  mean  to  leave  the  natives  exposed  to  the  tyranny  and 
insolence  of  every  profligate  adventurer  who  may  visit  the  East,  we 
must  place  the  European  under  the  same  power  which  legislates 
for  the  Hindoo.  No  man  loves  political  freedom  more  than  I. 
But  a  privilege  enjoyed  by  a  few  individuals  in  the  midst  of  a  vast 
population  who  do  not  enjoy  it,  ought  not  to  be  called  freedom. 
It  is  tyranny.  In  the  West  Indies  I  have  not  the  least  doubt  that 
the  existence  of  the  Trial  by  Jury  and  of  Legislative  Assemblies, 
has  tended  to  make  the  condition  of  the  slaves  worse  than  it  would 
otherwise  have  been.  Or,  to  go  to  India  itself  for  an  instance, 
though  I  fully  believe  that  a  mild  penal  code  is  better  than  a 
severe  penal  code,  the  worst  of  all  systems  was  surely  that  of 
having  a  mild  code  for  the  Brahmins,  who  sprang  from  the  head 
of  the  Creator,  while  there  was  a  severe  code  for  the  Sudras,  who 
sprang  from  his  feet.  India  has  suffered  enough  already  from  the 
distinction  of  castes,  and  from  the  deeply  rooted  prejudices  which 
those  distinctions  have  engendered.  God  forbid  that  we  should 
inflict  on  her  the  curse  of  a  new  caste,  that  we  should  send  her  a 
new  breed  of  Brahmins,  authorized  to  treat  all  the  native  population 
as  Parihas. 

With  a  view  to  the  prevention  of  this  evil,  we  propose  to  give 
to  the  supreme  government  the  power  of  legislating  for  Europeans 
as  well  as  for  natives.  We  propose  that  the  regulations  of  the 
Government  shall  bind  the  King's  Court  as  they  bind  all  other 
Courts,  and  that  registration  by  the  Judges  of  the  King's  Court 


EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL.  271 

shall  no  longer  be  necessary  to  give  validity  to  those  regulations 
within  the  towns  of  Calcutta,  Madras,  and  Bombay. 

I  could  scarcely,  Sir,  believe  my  ears  when  I  heard  this  part  of 
our  plan  condemned  in  another  place.  I  should  have  thought, 
that  it  would  have  been  received  with  peculiar  favour  in  that 
quarter  where  it  has  met  with  the  most  severe  condemnation. 
What,  at  present,  is  the  case  ?  If  the  Supreme  Court  and  the 
Government  differ  on  a  question  of  jurisdiction,  or  of  legislation 
within  the  towns  which  are  the  seats  of  Government,  there  is 
absolutely  no  umpire  but  the  Imperial  Parliament.  The  device  of 
putting  one  wild  elephant  between  two  tame  ones  was  ingenious ; 
but  it  may  not  always  be  practicable.  Suppose  a  tame  elephant 
between  two  wild  ones,  or  "suppose,  that  the  whole  herd  should 
run  wild  together.  The  thing  is  not  without  example.  And  is  it 
not  most  unjust  and  ridiculous  that  on  one  side  of  a  ditch  the  edict 
of  the  Governor  General  should  have  the  force  of  law,  and  that  on 
the  other  side  it  should  be  of  no  effect  unless  registered  by  the 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  ?  If  the  registration  be  a  security  for 
good  legislation,  we  are  bound  to  give  that  security  to  all  classes 
of  our  subjects.  If  the  registration  be  not  a  security  for  good 
legislation,  why  require  it  ?  Why  give  it  to  a  million  of  them,  and 
withhold  it  from  the  other  ninety-nine  millions?  Is  the  system 
good  ?  Extend  it.  Is  it  bad  ?  Abolish  it.  But  in  the  name  of 
common  sense  do  not  leave  it  as  it  is.  It  is  as  absurd  as  our  old 
law  of  sanctuary.  The  system  of  imprisonment  for  debt  may  be 
good  or  bad.  But  no  man  in  his  senses  can  approve  of  the  ancient 
system  under  which  a  debtor  who  might  be  arrested  in  Fleet 
Street  was  safe  as  soon  as  he  had  scampered  into  Whitefriars. 
Just  in  the  same  way,  doubts  may  fairly  be  entertained  about  the 
expediency  of  allowing  four  or  five  persons  to  make  laws  for  India; 
but  to  allow  them  to  make  laws  for  all  India  without  the  Mahratta 
ditch,  and  to  except  Calcutta,  is  the  height  of  absurdity. 

I  say,  therefore,  either  enlarge  the  power  of  the  Supreme  Court 


272 

and  give  it  a  general  veto  on  laws,  or  enlarge  the  power  of  the 
Government,  and  make  its  regulations  binding  on  all  Courts 
without  distinction.  The  former  course  no  person  has  ventured  to 
propose.  To  the  latter  course  objections  have  been  made, — but 
objections  which  to  me,  I  must  own,  seem  altogether  frivolous.  It 
is  acknowledged,  that  of  late  years  inconvenience  has  arisen  from 
the  relation  in  which  the  Supreme  Court  stands  to  the  Government. 

But,  it  is  said,  that  Court  was  originally  instituted  for  the  pro 
tection  of  natives  against  Europeans.  The  wise  course  would, 
therefore,  be  to  restore  its  original  character. 

Now,  Sir,  the  fact  is,  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  never  been  so 
mischievous  as  during  the  first  ten  years  of  its  power,  or  so 
respectable  as  it  has  lately  been.  Every  body  who  knows  any 
thing  of  its  early  history  knows,  that  for  a  considerable  time  after 
its  institution,  it  was  the  terror  of  Bengal,  the  scourge  of  native 
informants,  the  screen  of  European  delinquents,  a  convenient  tool 
of  the  government  for  all  purposes  of  evil,  an  insurmountable 
obstacle  to  the  Government  in  all  undertakings  for  the  public 
good ; — that  its  proceedings  were  made  up  of  pedantry,  cruelty, 
and  corruption  ; — that  its  disputes  with  the  Government  were  at 
one  time  on  the  point  of  breaking  up  the  whole  fabric  of  society ; 
and  that  a  convulsion  was  averted  only  by  the  dexterous  policy  of 
Warren  Hastings,  who  at  last  bought  off  the  opposition  of  the 
Chief  Justice  for  £8,000  a-year.  It  is  notorious,  that  while  the 
Supreme  Court  opposed  Hastings  in  all  his  best  measures,  it  was  a 
thorough-going  accomplice  in  his  worst — that  it  took  part  in  the 
most  scandalous  of  those  proceedings  which  fifty  years  ago  roused 
the  indignation  of  Parliament  and  of  the  country — that  it  assisted 
in  the  spoliation  of  the  princesses  of  Oude — that  it  passed 
sentence  of  death  on  Nuncomar.  And  this  is  the  Court  which 
we  are  to  restore  from  its  present  state  of  degeneracy  to  its  original 
purity.  This  is  the  protection  which  we  are  to  give  to  the  natives 
against  the  Europeans.  Sir,  so  far  is  it  from  being  true  that  the 


EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL.  273 

character  of  the  Supreme  Court  has  deteriorated,  that  it  has, 
perhaps,  improved  more  than  any  other  institution  in  India.  But 
the  evil  lies  deep  in  the  nature  of  the  institution  itself.  The  Judges 
have  in  our  time  deserved  the  greatest  respect.  Their  judgment 
and  integrity  have  done  much  to  mitigate  the  vices  of  the  system. 
The  worst  charge  that  can  be  brought  against  any  of  them  is  that 
of  pertinacity — disinterested,  conscientious,  pertinacity — in  error. 
The  real  evil  is  in  the  state  of  the  law.  You  have  two  supreme 
powers  in  India.  There  is  no  arbitrator  except  a  Legislature  ten 
thousand  miles  off.  Such  a  system  is  in  the  face  of  it  an  absurdity 
in  politics.  My  wonder  is,  not  that  this  system  has  several  times 
been  on  the  point  of  producing  fatal  consequences  to  the  peace  and 
resources  of  India, — these,  I  think,  are  the  words  in  which  Warren 
Hastings  describes  the  effect  of  the  contest  between  his  Govern 
ment  and  the  Judges — but  that  it  has  not  actually  produced  such 
consequences.  The  most  distinguished  members  of  the  Indian 
Government — the  most  distinguished  Judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court — call  upon  you  to  reform  this  system.  Sir  Charles  Metcalfe, 
Sir  Charles  Grey,  represent  with  equal  urgency  the  expediency  of 
having  one  single  paramount  council  armed  with  legislative  power. 
The  admission  of  Europeans  to  India  renders  it  absolutely  neces 
sary  not  to  delay  our  decision.  The  effect  of  that  admission  would 
be  to  raise  a  hundred  questions — to  produce  a  hundred  contests 
between  the  council  and  the  judicature.  The  Government  would 
be  paralysed  at  the  precise  moment  at  which  all  its  energy  was 
required.  While  the  two  equal  powers  were  acting  in  opposite 
directions,  the  whole  machine  of  the  state  would  stand  still.  The 
Europeans  would  be  uncontrolled ;  the  natives  would  be  unpro 
tected.  The  consequences  I  will  not  pretend  to  foresee.  Every 
thing  beyond  is  darkness  and  confusion. 

Having  given  to  the  Government  supreme  legislative  power,  we 
next  propose  to  give  to  it  for  a  time  the  assistance  of  a  Commission 
for  the  purpose  of  digesting  and  reforming  the  laws  of  India,  so 

12* 


274  EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL. 

that  those  laws  may,  as  soon  as  possible,  be  formed  into  a  code. 
Gentlemen  of  whom  I  wish  to  speak  with  the  highest  respect, 
have  expressed  a  doubt  whether  India  be  at  present  in  a  fit  state  to 
receive  a  benefit  which  is  not  yet  enjoyed  by  this  free  and  highly 
civilized  country.  Sir,  I  can  allow  to  this  argument  very  little 
weight  beyond  that  which  it  derives  from  the  personal  authority 
of  those  who  use  it.-  For,  in  the  first  place,  our  freedom  and  our 
high  civilization  render  this  improvement,  desirable  as  it  must 
always  be,  less  indispensably  necessary  to  us  than  to  our  Indian 
subjects :  and  in  the  next  place  our  freedom  and  civilization,  I 
fear,  render  it  far  more  difficult  for  us  to  obtain  this  benefit  for 
ourselves  than  to  bestow  it  on  them. 

I  believe  that  no  country  ever  stood  so  much  in  need  of  a  code 
of  laws  as  India,  and  I  believe  also  that  there  never  was  a  country 
in  which  the  want  might  so  easily  be  supplied.  I  said,  that  there 
were  many  points  of  analogy  between  the  state  of  that  country 
after  the  fall  of  the  Mogul  power,  and  the  state  of  Europe  after  the 
fall  of  the  Roman  empire.  In  one  respect  the  analogy  is  very 
striking.  As  in  Europe  then,  so  in  India  now,  there  are  several 
systems  of  law  widely  differing  from  each  other,  but  co-existing 
and  co-equal.  The  indigenous  population  has  its  own  laws.  Each 
of  the  successive  races  of  conquerors  has  brought  with  it  its  own 
peculiar  jurisprudence  :  the  Mussulman  his  Koran  and  its  innume 
rable  commentators — the  Englishman  his  Statute-Book,  and  his 
Term  Reports.  As  there  were  established  in  Italy,  at  one  and  the 
same  time,  the  Roman  law,  the  Lombard  lav/,  the  Ripuarian  law, 
the  Bavarian  law,  and  the  Salic  law,  so  we  have  now  in  our  Eastern 
empire  Hindoo  law,  Mahometan  law,  Parsee  law,  English  law  perpe 
tually  mingling  with  each  other,  and  disturbing  each  other ;  varying 
with  the  person,  varying  with  the  place.  In  one  and  the  same  cause 
the  process  and  pleadings  are  in  the  fashion  of  one  nation,  the 
judgment  is  according  to  the  laws  of  another.  An  issue  is  evolved 
according  to  the  rules  of  Westminster,  and  decided  according  to 


EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER    BILL,  275 

those  of  Benares.  The  only  Mahometan  book  in  the  nature  of  a 
code  is  the  Koran  ; — the  only  Hindoo  book  the  Institutes.  Every 
body  who  knows  those  books,  knows  that  they  provide  for  a  very 
small  part  of  the  cases  which  must  arise  in  every  community.  All 
beyond  them  is  comment  and  tradition.  Our  regulations  in  civil 
matters  do  not  define  rights ;  they  merely  establish  remedies.  If 
a  point  of  Hindoo  law  arises,  the  Judge  calls  on  the  Pundit  for  an 
opinion.  If  a  point  of  Mahometan  law  arises,  the  Judge  applies  to 
the  Cauzee.  What  the  integrity  of  these  functionaries  is,  we  may 
learn  from  Sir  William  Jones.  That  eminent  men  declared,  that 
he  could  riot  answer  it  to  his  conscience  to  decide  any  point  of  law 
on  the  faith  of  a  Hindoo  expositor.  Sir  Thomas  Strange  confirms 
this  declaration.  Even  if  there  were  no  suspicion  of  corruption  on 
the  part  of  the  interpreters  of  the  law,  the  science  which  they 
profess  is  in  such  a  state  of  confusion  that  no  reliance  can  be 
placed  on  their  answers.  Sir  Francis  Macnaghten  tells  us,  that  it 
is  a  delusion  to  fancy  that  there  is  any  known  and  fixed  law  under 
which  the  Hindoo  people  live;  that  texts  may  be  produced  on  any 
side  of  any  question ;  that  expositors  equal  in  authority  perpetually 
contradict  each  other ;  that  the  obsolete  law  is  perpetually  con 
founded  with  the  law  actually  in  force,  and  that  the  first  lesson  to 
be  impressed  on  a  functionary  who  has  to  administer  Hindoo  law 
is,  that  it  is  vain  to  think  of  extracting  certainty  from  the  books  of 
the  jurists.  The  consequence  is,  that  in  practice  the  decisions  of 
the  tribunals  are"  altogether  arbitrary.  What  is  administered  is 
not  law,  but  a  kind  of  rude  and  capricious  equity.  I  asked  an  able 
and  excellent  Judge  lately  returned  from  India  how  one  of  our 
Zillah  Courts  would  decide  several  legal  questions  of  great 
importance — questions  not  involving  considerations  of  religion  or 
of  caste — mere  questions  of  commercial  law.  He  told  me,  that  it 
was  a  mere  lottery.  He  knew  how  he  should  himself  decide 
them.  But  he  knew  nothing  more.  I  asked  a  most  distinguished 
civil  servant  of  the  Company,  with  reference  to  the  clause  in  this 


276  EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER    BILL. 

Act  abolishing  slavery,  whether  at  present,  if  a  dancing  girl  ran 
away  from  her  master,  the  Judge  would  force  her  to  go  back. 
"  Some  Judges,"  he  said,  "  send  a  girl  back ;  others  set  her  at 
liberty.  The  whole  is  a  mere  matter  of  chance.  Every  thing 
depends  on  the  temper  of  the  individual  judge." 

Even  in  this  country,  we  have  had  complaints  of  judge-made 
law  ;  even  in  this  country,  where  the  standard  of  morality  is 
higher  than  in  almost  any  other  part  of  the  world — where,  during 
several  generations,  not  one  depositary  of  our  legal  traditions  has 
incurred  the  suspicion  of  personal  corruption — where  there  are 
popular  institutions — where  every  decision  is  watched  by  a  shrewd 
and  learned  audience — where  there  is  an  intelligent  and  observant 
public — where  every  remarkable  case  is  fully  reported  in  a  hundred 
newspapers — where,  in  short,  there  is  everything  which  can 
mitigate  the  evils  of  such  a  system.  But  judge-made  law,  where 
there  is  an  absolute  government  and  a  lax  morality — where  there 
is  no  bar  and  no  public — is  a  curse  and  a  scandal  not  to  be 
endured.  It  is  time  that  the  Magistrate  should  know  what  law  he 
is  to  administer — that  the  subject  should  know  under  what  law  he 
is  to  live.  We  do  not  mean  that  all  the  people  of  India  should 
live  under  the  same  law  :  far  from  it :  there  is  not  a  word  in  the 
Bill  — there  was  not  a  word  in  my  right  hon.  friend's  speech — 
susceptible  of  such  an  interpretation.  We  know  how  desirable  that 
object  is ;  but  we  also  know  that  it  is  unattainable.  We  know 
that  respect  must  be  paid  to  feelings  generated -by  differences  of 
religion,  of  nation,  and  of  caste.  Much,  I  am  persuaded,  may  be 
done  to  assimilate  the  different  systems  of  law  without  wounding 
those  feelings.  But,  whether  we  assimilate  those  systems  or  not, 
let  us  ascertain  them,  let  us  digest  them.  We  propose  no  rash 
innovation ;  we  wish  to  give  no  shock  to  the  prejudices  of  any 
part  of  our  subjects.  Our  principle  is  simply  this — uniformity 
where  you  can  have  it — diversity  where  you  must  have  it — but  in 
all  cases  certainty. 


EAST-INDIA     COMPANY'S     CHARTER     BILL.  277 

As  I  believe  that  India  stands  more  in  need  of  a  code  than  any 
other  country  in  the  world,  I  believe  also  that  there  is  no  country 
on  which  that  great  benefit  can  more  easily  be  conferred.  A  code  is 
almost  the  only  blessing — perhaps  it  is  the  only  blessing  which 
absolute  governments  are  better  fitted  to  confer  on  a  nation  than 
popular  governments.  The  work  of  digesting  a  vast  and  artificial 
system  of  unwritten  jurisprudence,  is  far  more  easily  performed, 
and  far  better  performed,  by  few  minds  than  by  many — by  a 
Napoleon  than  by  a  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  a  Chamber  of 
Peers — by  a  government  like  that  of  Prussia  or  Denmark,  than  by 
a  government  like  that  of  England.  A  quiet  knot  of  two  or  three 
veteran  jurists  is  an  infinitely  better  machinery  for  such  a  purpose 
than  a  large  popular  assembly  divided,  as  such  assemblies  almost 
always  are,  into  adverse  factions.  This  seems  to  me,  therefore,  to 
be  precisely  that  point  of  time  at  which  the  advantage  of  a 
complete  written  code  of  laws  may  most  easily  be  conferred  on 
India.  It  is  a  work  which  cannot  be  well  performed  in  an  age  of 
barbarism — which  cannot  without  great  difficulty  be  performed  in 
an  age  of  freedom.  It  is  the  work  which  especially  belongs  to  a 
government  like  that  of  India — to  an  enlightened  and  paternal 
despotism. 

I  have  detained  the  House  so  long,  Sir,  that  I  will  defer  what  I 
had  to  say  on  some  parts  of  this  measure — important  parts,  indeed, 
but  far  less  important,  as  I  think,  than  those  to  which  I  have 
adverted,  till  we  are  in  Committee.  There  is,  however,  one  part  of 
the  Bill  on  which,  after  what  has  recently  passed  elsewhere,  I  feel 
myself  irresistibly  impelled  to  say  a  few  words.  I  allude  to  that 
wise,  that  benevolent,  that  noble  clause,  which  enacts  that  no 
native  of  our  Indian  empire  shall,  by  reason  of  his  colour, 
his  descent,  or  his  religion,  be  incapable  of  holding  office.  At 
the  risk  of  being  called  by  that  nickname  which  is  regarded  as 
the  most  opprobrious  of  all  nicknames,  by  men  of  selfish  hearts 
and  contracted  minds — at  the  risk  of  being  called  a  philosopher — 


278  EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL. 

I  must  say  that,  to  the  last  day  of  my  life,  I  shall  be  proud  of 
having  been  one  of  those  who  assisted  in  the  framing  of  the  Bill 
which  contains  that  clause.  We  are  told  that  the  time  can  never 
come  when  the  natives  of  India  can  be  admitted  to  high  civil  and 
military  office.  We  are  told  that  this  is  the  condition  on  which 
we  hold  our  power.  We  are  told,  that  we  are  bound  to  confer  on 
our  subjects — every  benefit  which  they  are  capable  of  enjoying  ? — 
no — which  it  is  in  our  power  to  confer  on  them  ? — no — but  which 
we  can  confer  on  them  without  hazard  to  our  own  domination. 
Against  that  proposition  I  solemnly  protest  as  inconsistent  alike 
with  sound  policy  and  sound  morality. 

I  am  far,  very  far,  from  wishing  to  proceed  hastily  in  this  most 
delicate  matter.  I  feel  that,  for  the  good  of  India  itself,  the 
admission  of  natives  to  high  office  must  be  effected  by  slow 
degrees.  But  that,  when  the  fulness  of  time  is  come,  when  the 
interest  of  India  requires  the  change,  we  ought  to  refuse  to  make 
that  change  lest  we  should  endanger  our  own  power;  this  is  a 
doctrine  which  I  cannot  think  of  without  indignation.  Govern 
ments,  like  men,  may  buy  existence  too  dear.  "  Propter  vitam 
vivendi  perdere  causas,"  is  a  despicable  policy  either  in  individuals 
or  in  states.  In  the  present  case,  such  a  policy  would  be  not  only 
despicable,  but  absurd.  The  mere  extent  of  empire  is  not  neces 
sarily  an  advantage.  To  many  governments  it  has  been  cumber 
some  ;  to  some  it  has  been  fatal.  It  will  be  allowed  by  every 
statesman  of  our  time,  that  the  prosperity  of  a  community  is  mado 
up  of  the  prosperity  of  those  who  compose  the  community,  and 
that  it  is  the  most  childish  ambition  to  covet  dominion  which  adds 
to  no  man's  comfort  or  security.  To  the  great  trading  nation,  to  the 
great  manufacturing  nation,  no  progress  which  any  portion  -of  the 
human  race  can  make  in  knowledge,  in  taste  for  the  conveniences 
of  life,  or  in  the  wealth  by  which  those  conveniences  are  produced, 
can  be  matter  of  indifference.  It  is  scarcely  possible  to  calculate 
the  benefits  which  we  might  derive  from  the  diffusion  of  European 


EAST-I^DIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL.  270 

civilization  among  the  vast  population  of  the  East.  It  would  be, 
on  the  most  selfish  view  of  the  case,  far  better  for  us  that  the 
people  of  India  were  well  governed  and  independent  of  us.  than  ill 
governed  and  subject  to  us — that  they  were  ruled  by  their  own 
kings,  but  wearing  our  broadcloth,  and  working  with  our  cutlery, 
than  that  they  were  performing  their  salams  to  English  collectors 
and  English  Magistrates,  but  were  too  ignorant  to  value,  or  too 
poor  to  buy,  English  manufactures.  To  trade  with  civilized  men 
is  infinitely  more  profitable  than  to  govern  savages.  That  would, 
indeed,  be  a  doting  wisdom,  which,  in  order  that  India  might 
remain  a  dependency,  would  make  it  an  useless  and  costly 
dependency — which  would  keep  a  hundred  millions  of  men  from 
being  our  customers  in  order  that  they  might  continue  to  be  our 
slaves. 

It  was,  as  Bernier  tells  us,  the  practice  of  the  miserable  tyrants 
whom  he  found  in  India,  when  they  dreaded  the  capacity  and 
spirit  of  some  distinguished  subject,  and  yet  could  not  venture  to 
murder  him,  to  administer  to  him  a  daily  dose  of  the  pousta,  a 
preparation  of  opium,  the  effect  of  which  was  in  a  few  months  to 
destroy  all  the  bodily  and  mental  powers  of  the  wretch  who  was 
drugged  with  it,  and  to  turn  turn  into  an  helpless  idiot.  The 
detestable  artifice,  more  horrible  than  assassination  itself,  was 
worthy  of  those  who  employed  it.  It  is  no  model  for  the  English 
nation.  We  shall  never  consent  to  administer  the  pousta  to  a 
whole  community — to  stupify  and  paralyse  a  great  people  whom 
God  has  committed  to  our  charge  for  the  wretched  purpose  of 
rendering  them  more  amenable  to  our  control.  What  is  that 
power  worth  which  is  founded  on  vice,  on  ignorance,  and  on 
misery — which  we  can  hold  only  by  violating  the  most  sacred 
duties  which  as  governors  we  owe  to  the  governed — which  as  a 
people  blessed  with  far  more  than  an  ordinary  measure  of  political 
liberty  and  of  intellectual  light,  we  owe  to  a  race  debased  by 
three  thousand  years  of  despotism  and  priestcraft  ?  We  are  free, 


280  EAST-INDIA    COMPANY'S    CHARTER   BILL. 

we  are  civilized,  to  little  purpose,  if  we  grudge  to  any  portion 
of  the  human  race  an  equal  measure  of  freedom  and  civiliza 
tion. 

Are  we  to  keep  the  people  of  India  ignorant  in  order  that 
we  may  keep  them  submissive  ?  Or  do  we  think  that  we  can  give 
them  knowledge  without  awakening  ambition  ?  Or  do  we  mean 
to  awaken  ambition  and  to  provide  it  with  no  legitimate  vent  ? . 
Who  will  answer  any  of  these  questions  in  the  affirmative  ?  Yet 
one  of  them  must  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  by  every  person 
who  maintains  that  we  ought  permanently  to  exclude  the  natives 
from  high  office.  I  have  no  fears.  The  path  of  duty  is  plain 
before  us  :  and  it  is  also  the  path  of  wisdom,  of  national  prosperity, 
of  national  honour. 

The  destinies  of  our  Indian  empire  are  covered  with  thick 
darkness.  It  is  difficult  to  form  any  conjecture  as  to  the  fate 
reserved  for  a  state  which  resembles  no  other  in  history,  and  which 
forms  by  itself  a  separate  class  of  political  phenomena.  The  laws 
which  regulate  its  growth  and  its  decay  are  still  unknown  to  us. 
It  may  be  that  the  public  mind  of  India  may  expand  under  our 
system  till  it  has  outgrown  that  system  ;  that  by  good  government 
we  may  educate  our  subjects  into*  a  capacity  for  better  government, 
that,  having  become  instructed  in  European  knowledge,  they  may, 
in  some  future  age,  demand  European  institutions.  Whether  such 
a  day  will  ever  come  I  know  not.  But  never  will  I  attempt  to 
avert  or  to  retard  it.  Whenever  it  comes,  it  will  be  the  proudest 
day  in  English  history.  To  have  found  a  great  people  sunk  in  the 
lowest  depths  of  slavery  and  superstition,  to  have  so  ruled  them  as 
to  have  made  them  desirous  and  capable  of  all  the  privileges  of 
citizens,  would  indeed  be  a  title  to  glory  all  our  own.  The  sceptre 
may  pass  away  from  us.  Unforeseen  accidents  may  derange  our 
most  profound  schemes  of  policy.  Victory  may  be  inconstant  to 
our  arms.  But  there  are  triumphs  which  are  followed  by  no 


EAST-INDIA   COMPANY'S   CHARTER   BILL.  281 

reverses.  There  is  an  empire  exempt  from  all  natural  causes  of 
decay.  These  triumphs  are  the  pacific  triumphs  of  reason  over 
barbarism ;  that  empire  is  the  imperishable  empire  of  our  arts  and 
our  morals,  our  literature  and  our  laws. 


282 


MINISTERIAL    PLAN    FOR    THE    ABOLITION    OF 
SLAVERY.* 

JULY  24,  1833. 

HE  rose  with  feelings  of  regret  upon  the  present  occasion.  Though 
he  had  taken  no  part  in  the  discussion  upon  this  Bill,  yet  there 
was  no  one  who  had  with  more  patience  watched,  or  with  greater 
anxiety  attended  to,  the  provisions  of  a  measure,  which  he  could 
not  but  consider  to  contain  a  great  mixture  of  good  and  evil.  He 
should  now  express  his  opinions  upon  this  Bill  in  general,  and 
particularly  on  those  parts  in  which  Amendments  had  been 
introduced,  and  to  which  the  hon.  Member  (Mr.  Fowell  Buxton) 
had  referred.  He  should  discharge  his  duty,  he  was  afraid,  very 
imperfectly,  and  he  would  therefore  entreat  the  House  to  extend 
to  him  that  indulgence  on  the  present  occasion  which  he  had 
experienced  on  former  occasions  when  he  had  addressed  it  with 
less  harassed  feelings,  and  more  confidence  than  at  present.  He 
had  every  disposition  not  only  to  do  the  amplest  justice  to  his 
Majesty's  Ministers,  but  to  give  them  the  greatest  credit — them, 
with  whom  he  generally  acted — for  having  framed  every  part  of 
this  measure  with  the  purest  and  most  benevolent  intentions,  even 
those  parts  of  which  he  could  not  approve.  To  those  parts  of 
which  .he  disapproved,  he  was  anxious  to  state  his  objection,  but, 
previous  to  doing  that,  he  most  solemnly  disclaimed  any  unfriendly 
feeling  towards  any  class  of  persons  whose  interests  might  be 
concerned  in  the  proposed  measure.  He  hoped  that  he  should  be 
able  to  prove,  that  he  was  not,  on  the  one  hand,  disposed  to 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  xix.  p.  1202-1209. 


ABOLITION     OF     SLAVERY.  2&3 

sacrifice  principle  to  party,  nor  on  the  other,  disposed  to  sacrifice 
the  rights  of  the  planters  to  popular  clamour.  Of  the  three  objects 
which  the  Bill  was  intended  to  effect,  the  first  had  his  fullest  and 
most  unqualified  approbation — the  abolition  of  slavery.  He 
believed  slavery  to  be  the  greatest  of  political  evils ;  and  when  he 
thought  of  the  horrid  state  of  the  slave,  he  sometimes  felt  ashamed 
of  himself  for  the  enthusiasm  he  had  manifested  in  removing 
domestic  grievances  ;  such,  for  example,  as  the  Catholic  disabilities. 
They  nad  seen  guilt  in  many  ages  and  in  many  countries ;  but 
where  had  they  seen  guilt  in. the  hideous  forms  in  which  it  had 
for  so  many  years  been  exhibited  in  the  West-India  islands? 
Slavery  there  had  l>een-  made  to  do  the  work  of  famine,  of 
pestilence,  and  of  war  combined.  It  had  accomplished  more  than 
they  could  accomplish,  in  putting  an  end  to  that  disposition  to 
increase  and  multiply  which  was  manifested  by  the  human  race  in 
every  other  part  of  the  world.  There  had  been  fierce  and  pro 
longed  wars  in  Europe,  but  population  went  on  augmenting ;  and 
fresh  life  filled  up  the  chasms  caused  by  such  fields  as  those  of 
Leipzic,  Borodino,  and  Waterloo.  Ambition  had  done  all  it  could 
to  destroy ;  but  it  had  been  assisted  by  famine  and  pestilence ; 
but  the  void  which  they  created  was  speedily  and  completely  filled 
up.  The  law  of  nature  was  not  counteracted.  As  soon  as  the 
population  became  thinned  by  any  powerful  physical  cause,  early 
marriages  increased,  and  the  deficiency  was  soon  supplied.  In 
the  West-India  colonies  alone  was  found  a  society  in  which  the 
number  of  human  beings  was  continually  decreasing  without  the 
surviving  labourers  obtaining  any  advantages.  In  the  West-India 
Colonies  a  state  of  society  existed  unparalleled  in  the  history  of 
the  world.  Fully  believing  in  the  necessity  of  demolishing 
slavery,  lie  nevertheless  thought,  that  his  Majesty's  Government 
had  taken  the  right  course  in  the  Bill  which  his  right  lion,  friend 
had  introduced.  The  only  fault  which  he  found  with  that  Bill 
was,  that  it  had  a  leaning  to  mitigate  an  evil  which  ought  to  be 


284  ABOLITION     OF     SLAVERY. 

demolished  altogether.  They  had  made  attempts  to  mitigate 
slavery  on  former  occasions.  They  had  sent  out  to  the  negro  a 
Church  Establishment,  while  they  left  him  to  be  bought  and  sold ; 
but  that  mitigation  was  useless.  The  object  of  this  Bill,  he 
thanked  God !  was  not  a  mitigation  of  that  description ;  it 
attacked  the  foundation  of  the  principle  of  slavery.  Slavery  was 
not  a  system  which  could  be  improved ;  it  must  be  annihilated. 
Slavery  was  in  itself  the  abuse.  The  principle  of  slavery,  as 
Montesquieu  had  observed,  was  pure  unmixed  evil.  Terror  was 
the  only  motive  that  could  operate  upon  the  slave.  Terror  was 
the  only  mode  by  which  the  proprietor  of  the  slave  could  hope  to 
guard  his  own  life  or  to  save  his  wife  and  daughters  from  violation, 
If  they  abstracted  terror  from  the  system,  the  "whole  fabric  of 
slavery  was  at  once  destroyed.  The  introduction  of  liberty  was  a 
new  principle,  not  a  mitigation  of  slavery.  To  mitigate  slavery  by 
introducing  liberty,  would  be  to  take  away  the  props  without 
supplying  pillars.  When  he  heard  persons  say,  that  it  would  be 
madness  immediately  to  put  an  end  to  slavery,  and  at  the  same 
time  declare  that  it  was  frightful  to  continue  its  cruelties,  it 
appeared  to  him  as  if  they  were  the  most  inconsistent  of  men. 
He  could  not  comprehend  the  mitigation  of  slavery.  Its  abolition 
would  give  the  slave  a  motive  for  preserving  the  order  by  which 
he  was  to  benefit.  In  this  country  where  there  were  no  slaves, 
where  the  lowest  labourer  was  an  intelligent  being,  we  could 
afford  to  connive  at  the  violence  of  a  mob ;  we  could  laugh  at 
Political  Unions  and  speeches  ;  even  in  cases  of  actual  treason  and 
rebellion  we  could  punish  the  leaders  and  pardon  their  followers ; 
but  in  such  a  country  as  the  West  Indies,  to  tell  the  masters  to  be 
merciful  and  moderate,  was  to  tell  them  to  submit  to  butchery. 
How  was  it  possible,  that  while  they  gave  the  negroes  religious 
instruction,  in  order  to  educate  them  as  men,  they  could  continue 
to  treat  them  as  brutes?  Of  that  part  of  the  Bill,  therefore, 
which  abolished  slavery,  he  cordially  approved.  There  was 


ABOLITION     OF     SLAVERY.  285 

another  part  of  the  Bill  which  he  knew  was  most  unpopular — he 
meant  the  Compensation  Clause — to  which,  however,  he  gave  his 
full  consent.  He  regretted  that,  on  this  point,  he  felt  it  his  duty 
to  oppose  those  with  whom  he  had  generally  had  the  happiness  to 
act  on  this  subject ;  but  he  was  prepared  to  take  his  full  share  of 
whatever  unpopularity  might  arise  from  this  part  of  the  Bill.  He 
well  knew,  that  there  were  in  this  country  many  excellent  persons 
who  detested  the  principle  on  which  compensation  to  the  planters 
was  founded.  It  was  not  with  those  persons  a  question  of  money. 
They  would  be  quite  ready  to  give  the  twenty  millions  or  thirty 
millions,  or  more,  as  charity,  but  they  were  strongly  opposed  to 
giving  it  as  compensation.  For  his  part,  he  held  that  the  owners 
of  the  slaves  had  a  distinct  right  to  this  compensation.  He  did 
not  mean  to  say,  that  they  had  any  right  as  against  the  slave ; 
and  if  he  had  no  alternative  but  to  choose  between  the  positions — 
that  slavery  should  never  be  abolished,  or  that  the  planter  should 
never  be  compensated,  he  should  have  no  hesitation  in  deciding 
for  the  latter ;  for  highly  as  he  valued  the  rights  of  property,  he 
could  never  put  them  in  competition  with  the  right  of  personal 
liberty.  It  had  been  most  justly  declared,  that  the  property  of 
man  in  his  labour  was  the  origin  of  all  property,  and  ought  to  be 
held  most  sacred.  Therefore,  if  there  must  be  robbery  at  all,  he 
would  rather  rob  the  planter  of  his  property  than  the  slave  of  his 
freedom.  But  to  that  alternative  he  was  not  reduced.  With  the 
question  of  compensation  a  slave  had  nothing  to  do.  The  State 
had  solemnly  sanctioned  the  property  of  the  planter.  The  public 
faith  had  been  pledged  to  its  maintenance  by  proclamation,  by 
treaty,  by  prescription.  Could  that  House  consent  to  violate  it  I 
He  had  heard  that  it  was  maintained  that  the  planter  ought  to 
receive  no  compensation,  because  there  ought  to  be  no  indemnity 
for  the  abandonment  of  crime.  He  protested  against  such  a 
doctrine,  as  establishing  principles  that  would  be  most  extensively 
pernicious.  He  readily  admitted,  that  no  contract  tending  to 


286  ABOLITION     OF     SLAVERY. 

dime  was  binding,  and  that  to  condemn  men  to  slavery  was 
criminal.  If  100  Acts  of  Parliament  had  been  passed  to  establish 
slavery,  and  if  all  the  Members  of  that  House  had  sworn  at  the 
Table  to  maintain  slavery,  slavery  ought  nevertheless  to  be 
abolished.  But  that  was  not  the  question  to  be  considered. 
When  crime  entered  into  a  contract  between  two  parties  equally 
criminal,  it  could  not  prevent  the  execution  of  the  contract  as  it 
respected  them.  If  the  choice  were  solely  between  violating  the 
public  faith,  or  putting  an  end  to  slavery,  which  was  a  violation  of 
the  law  of  nature,  it  would  be  a  very  different  matter ;  but  here 
there  was  an  alternative  ;  and  where  there  was  that  alternative, 
the  violation  of  public  faith  would  be  subversive  of  all  public  and 
private  morality.  He  was  sorry  to  detain  the  House ;  but  the 
principle  was  of  so  much  consequence,  not  only  at  the  present 
time,  but  with  reference  to  the  future,  that  he  could  not  refrain 
from  making  a  few  further  observations  upon  it.  If  they  were  to 
violate  the  public  faith  pledged  to  the  West-India  planter,  they 
would  establish  a  precedent  of  a  most  monstrous  and  injurious 
character.  To  illustrate  this  position,  he  would  take  an  instance 
from  the  commonest  life :  suppose  a  Catholic  gentleman  had 
ordered  an  image  for  the  decoration  of  his  chapel  to  be  sculptured 
by  a  first-rate  artist,  and  that  when,  after  immense  skill  and 
labour,  the  image  was  finished,  he  should  say  to  the  artist,  "  Take 
it  back,  since  I  ordered  it  my  mind  has  been  enlightened  ;  I  now 
believe  that  the  Protestant  is  the  true  religion.  I  therefore 
consider  the  contract  between  you  and  me  as  sinful,  and  I  cannot 
consent  to  perform  my  part  of  it."  Would  not  the  argument  that 
would  justly  be  used  be :  "  If  you  are  enlightened,  so  much  the 
better  ;  but  you  must  pay  for  the  contract  into  which  you  entered 
when  you  were  in  a  state  of  darkness  ?"  Or  suppose  a  Mahome 
tan,  having  three  or  four  wives  in  his  Harem,  were  to  embrace 
Christianity,  would  he  be  entitled  to  break  his  contract  with  them, 
turn  them  all  out  into  the  world,  and  leave  them  to  starve  ?  Or, 


ABOLITION     OF     SLAVERY.  287 

in  the  case  of  a  lottery,  which,  as  all  gaming  was  vicious,  ought 
never  to  be  resorted  to  by  a  Government,  would  it  not  be  the 
height  of  enormity,  if,  after  all  the  tickets  had  been  sold,  Govern 
ment  were  to  declare  that  it  had  become  sensible  of  its  error,  and 
were  to  leave  the  purchasers  to  digest  their  loss  ?  Nay,  if  once 
such  a  doctrine  as  that  which  he  was  contravening  were  established, 
almost  the  whole  of  the  public  debt  of  this  country  ought  to  be 
wiped  away ;  for  he  held  that  there  was  no  national  crime  greater 
than  to  engage  in  wanton  and  unjustifiable  wars ;  and  the  greater 
part  of  that  debt  was  incurred  in  the  prosecution  of  such  wars. 
For  instance,  during  the  American  war  we  had  borrowed  100 
millions.  The  prosecution  of  that  war  was  as  wicked  an  act  as  the 
maintenance  of  slavery.  What  difference  was  there  between 
keeping  one  set  of  men  in  a  state  of  severe  and  unmerited  bon 
dage,  and  carrying  fire  and  sword  among  another  set  of  men  who 
merely  asserted  their  rights  ?  If  it  was  unjust  to  compel  the 
slave  to  labour  throughout  life  for  his  master,  was  it  not  unjust  to 
spend  money  in  sending  the  sabre  of  the  Hessian,  or  the  tomahawk 
of  the  Indian,  into  the  fields  of  a  people  who  were  only  struggling 
for  liberty  ?  If,  therefore,  the  principle  against  which  he  was 
contending  were  established,  those  who  admitted  it  would  be  at  a 
loss  to  make  out  how  the  claims  of  almost  any  public  creditor 
could  be  considered  as  valid.  He  repeated,  therefore,  that  he  was 
decidedly  favourable  to  two  of  the  principles  of  the  Bill  ;  the 
Abolition  of  Slavery,  and  the  Compensation  to  the  Planter.  But 
as  to  the  third  principle  of  this  Bill,  which  related  to  the  transition 
state  of  the  negro,  before  the  total  cessation  of  his  slavery,  he 
confessed  that  he  entertained  great,  and  in  some  respects,  he 
feared,  insurmountable  doubts.  There  could  be  no  question  that 
it  was  the  solemn  duty  of  Parliament  to  do  all  they  could  to 
protect  the  planter  ;  but  he  had  great  doubts  if  the  provision  in 
question  would  have  that  effect.  If  it  could  be  proved,  that  what 
they  were  about  to  do  was  calculated  to  improve  the  morality  of 


288  ABOLITION     6*F     SLAVERY. 

the  slave,  and  thereby  enable  him,  when  he  became  wholly  free, 
better  to  discharge  the  duties  of  a  citizen,  he  should  assent  to  it. 
He  should  not  refuse  to  assent  to  it  because  it  was  severe, 
provided  it  could  be  shown  that  that  severity  was  likely  to  be 
efficacious.  What  he  objected  to  was  this,  that  the  restraints  laid 
on  the  negro  by  the  Bill  were  not  so  laid  with  the  sole  view  of 
improving  his  moral  character.  His  right  hon.  friend  had,  with 
perfect  candour,  admitted  that.  The  ninth  clause  of  the  Bill 
contained  a  provision  that  it  should  be  lawful  for  the  slave  at  any 
time  to  purchase  his  freedom  on  the  payment  of  a  value  legally 
fixed.  Now  that  clause  admitted  a  principle  in  which  he  could 
not  acquiesce ;  namely,  that  the  planters  had  a  right  to  compen 
sation  from  their  slaves.  The  planters  and  the  State  had  been 
accomplices  in  a  crime,  and  it  would  be  exceedingly  hard  and 
unjust  to  throw  the  burden  of  retribution  on  one  party;  but  it 
would  be  still  more  hard  and  unjust  to  lay  any  portion  of  it  on 
the  third  and  injured  party.  By  this  clause  a  negro  who  was  fit 
for  all  the  duties  of  civil  life,  might  still  be  kept  in  slavery.  Why 
was  he  to  give  this  money  to  his  master  ?  If  the  clause  had 
provided,  that  when  the  slave  had  laid  up  a  certain  sum  in  the 
Savings'  Bank  he  should  become  free,  that  would  have  been  a  fair 
proposition ;  but  when  they  compelled  him  to  pay  it  to  the 
master,  they  compelled  him  to  pay  the  price  of  a  right — a  princi 
ple — the  justice  of  which  he  (Mr.  Macaulay)  could  never  admit. 
A  man  who  had  laid  up  101.  was  not  rendered  more  or  less  fit  for 
freedom  by  giving  that  money  to  his  master,-  or  by  keeping  it  in 
his  own  chest.  He  denied  the  right  of  the  State  to  demand  any 
sacrifice  whatever  from  the  injured  party.  He  would  now  say  a 
few  words  with  respect  to  the  restraints  which  were  imposed  on 
slaves  who  were  artizans,  artificers,  coopers,  &c.,  or  who,  in  the 
words  of  his  right  hon.  friend,  were  non-predial.  Even  many  of 
those  who  denied  that  the  slaves  engaged  in  agriculture  were  fit 
for  freedom,  admitted  that  the  non-predial  slaves  were  perfectly 
fit  for  freedom  ;  and  he  was  convinced  that  they  mi'srht  be  instantly 


ABOLITION     OF     SLAVERY.  289 

set  free  from  all  restraints,  without  any  danger  whatever  to  society. 
If  so,  it  was  impossible  to  justify  the  infliction  upon  them  of  a 
seven  years'  apprenticeship.  With  respect  to  the  other  class  of 
slaves,  who,  it  might  be  said,  stood  more  in  need  of  a  transition 
state,  he  was  apprehensive  that  the  twelve  years'  apprenticeship 
would  be  found  a  bad  and  inefficient  mode  of  training  them  for 
freedom.  There  had  been  no  practical  experience  on  this  matter. 
Indeed,  they  might  as  well  talk  of  practical  experience  of  a  nation 
of  Amazons.  There  had  been  no  example  of  such  apprenticeships. 
He  must  say,  however,  that  he  thought  the  argument  on  the 
subject  of  his  hon.  friend,  the  member  for  Weymouth,  very 
convincing ;  and  that  he  did  not  think  that  his  right  hon.  friend 
had  met  that  argument  in  so  direct  a  manner  as  was  usual  with 
him.  Agricultural  labour  in  the  West-Indies  was  a  most  painful 
drudgery.  The  labourer,  therefore,  ought  to  have  a  strong  motive 
for  exertion.  He  was  at  a  loss,  however,  to  understand  what  that 
motive  was  to  be.  Even  in  this  country,  agricultural  apprentices 
were  not  taken  without  a  premium,  and  he  understood  that  the 
great  body  of  apprentices  did  not,  for  a  considerable  time,  earn 
their  own  living.  But  what  was  to  be  the  motive  of  the  West- 
India  apprentice  to  exert  himself? — The  Magistrate.  It  was  he 
who  was  to  superintend  all  the  operations  of  society  in  the  colonies. 
Every  day  in  the  week,  and  every  hour  in  the  day,  whenever  the 
master  became  harsh,  or  the  slave  became  indolent,  there  was  to 
be  no  recourse  but  to  the  Magistrate.  It  must  be  recollected,  that 
in  the  colonies  the  negro  and  the  master  would  always  have 
opposite  interests,  and  that  those  interests  could  not  be  reconciled 
by  law.  In  this  country  it  was  quite  different.  Here  a  master 
had  the  choice  of  labourers,  and  a  labourer  the  choice  of  masters ; 
but  in  slavery  it  had  always  been  found  necessary  to  give  despotic 
power  to  the  master.  By  this  Bill  it  was  left  to  the  Magistrate  to 
keep  the  peace  between  the  master  and  the  slave.  Every  time 
that  the  slave  took  twenty  minutes,  to  do  that  which  the  master 

thought  he  might  have  done  in  fifteen,  recourse  must  be  had  to 
VOL.  i.  i  ° 


290  ABOLITION     Of     SLAVERY. 

the  Magistrate.  Society  day  and  night  would  be  in  a  constant 
state  of  litigation,  and  all  differences  and  difficulties  were  to  be 
met  by  judicial  interference.  He  did  not  entertain  the  appre 
hensions  expressed  by  his  hon.  friend,  the  member  for  Weymouth, 
that  such  a  state  of  things  would  lead  to  gross  cruelty.  It  would, 
in  his  opinion,  be  merely  a  state  of  dead  slavery,  a  state  destitute  of 
any  vital  principle.  He  did  not  see  reason  to  apprehend  any 
cruelty ;  for  what  motive  could  the  stipendiary  Magistrate  have 
for  hostility  towards  the  slaves  ?  The  contrary  would,  he  thought, 
be  the  case.  The  Magistrates  would  be  accountable  to  the 
Colonial  Office ;  the  Colonial  Office  to  the  House  of  Commons,  in 
which  every  whipping  would,  no  doubt,  be  told.  The  object  of 
the  Magistrate,  therefore,  would  be  to  be  as  lenient  as  possible. 
His  apprehension  was,  that  the  result  of  continuing  this  state  of 
society  for  twelve  years  would  be,  that  the  whole  negro  population 
would  become  inactive,  would  sink  into  weak  and  dawdling 
inefficiency,  and  would  be  much  less  fit  for  liberty  at  the  end  of 
the  period  than  at  its  commencement.  His  hope  was,  that  the 
system  would  die  a  natural  death  ;  that  a  few  months'  experience 
would  establish  its  utter  inefficiency,  so  as  to  induce  the  planters 
to  abandon  it,  ajid  to  substitute  a  state  of  freedom.  In  his 
opinion,  however,  it  would  be  much  better,  that  that  should  be 
done  by  parliamentary  enactment,  rather  than  it  should  be  left 
to  the  Colonial  Authorities.  He  had  voted  for  the  second  read 
ing  of  the  Bill,  and  he  should  vote  for  the  third  reading  of  it ;  but 
while  it  was  in  the  Committee,  he  would  join  with  other  hon. 
Members  in  doing  all  that  was  possible  to  amend  those  points  of 
the  Bill  to  which  he  objected.  He  was  aware  how  freely  he  had 
stated  his  opinions  on  this  important  question  ;  but  he  was  sure 
that  the  House  would  do  justice  to  his  motives,  which,  amidst 
conflicting  feelings  and  opinions,  prompted  him  honestly  to 
endeavour  to  perform  his  duty. 


291 


ON   THE  BALLOT.* 

JUXE  18,  1839. 

HAVING  been  long  absent  from  the  House,  he  wished  it  had  been 
in  his  power  to  be,  at  least  for  some  weeks,  a  silent  listener  to  their 
debates  ;  but  the  deep  interest  which  he  took  in  this  question,  and 
his  sense  of  what  he  owed  to  a  large  and  respectable  portion  of  his 
constituents,  whose  views  on  this  subject  concurred  with  his  own, 
impelled  him  to  trust  to  that  indulgence  which  it  was  customary 
in  that  House  to  bestow.  But  before  he  made  any  remarks  upon 
the  question  immediately  before  the  House,  he  wished  to  advert,  fc. 
a  short  time,  to  one  topic  which  had  excited  the  greatest  interest 
throughout  the  country,  and  to  which  the  hon.  Gentleman  who  had 
just  sat  down  had  made  some  very  sarcastic,  and  not,  he  thought, 
exceedingly  well-judged  allusions.  It  was  generally  understood 
that  her  Majesty's  Ministers  had  determined  that  the  question  of 
the  ballot  should  be  an  open  question — that  all  the  members  of  the- 
Government  should  be  free  to  speak  and  vote  on  that  question 
according  to  their  individual  opinions.  It  was  natural  that  this 
determination  should  excite  censure  on  the  one  side  of  the  House  and 
applause  on  the  other.  For  his  own  part,  he  must  say,  that,  with 
out  any  reference  whatever  to  his  opinion  on  this  particular  question, 
he  was  inclined,  on  higher  and  more  general  grounds,  to  approve 
of  the  determination  of  the  Government.  He  rejoiced  to  see  the 
number  of  open  questions  increasing  ;  he  rejoiced  to  see  that  the} 
were  returning  to  the  wise,  the  honest,  the  moderate  maxims  which 
prevailed  in  that  House  in  the  time  of  their  fathers  and  grand- 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  xlviii.  p.  462-476, 


392  THE     BALLOT. 

fathers.  He  said,  that  the  practice  of  the  House,  in  that  respect, 
had  undergone,  in  very  recent  times,  a  great  change;  he  believed 
that  another  change  was  now  taking  place,  and  that  they  were 
reverting  to  a  more  prudent  and  rational  system.  To  what  pre 
cise  extent  it  was  desirable  that  the  Ministers  of  the  Crown  should 
act  in  strict  concert  together  in  Parliament  on  the  various  legisla 
tive  questions  that  came  under  consideration,  was  an  exceedingly 
nice  question,  a  question  to  which,  so  far  as  he  was  aware,  no  rigid 
and  strictly  drawn  rule  could  be  applied.  Hon.  Gentlemen  on  the 
other  side,  no  doubt,  possessed  a  great  advantage  over  him  ;  they 
were  probably  aware  of  much  that  might  have  passed  during  the  last 
four  or  five  years  on  this  subject,  with  which  he  was  unacquainted. 
But  he  was  not  aware  that  any  speculative  or  practical  statesman 
had  ever  been  found,  either  in  writing  or  speaking,  to  take  any 
distinct  line  on  this  subject,  and  to5  trace  out  a  definite  line  of 
action,  for  the  guide  of  political  prudence,  in  all  cases,  was,  he 
believed,  difficult,  and  perhaps  impossible.  It  was  perfectly  plain, 
however,  that  there  were  but  three  courses  possible  with  respect 
to  the  conduct  of  Ministers  in  dealing  with  legislative  questions — 
either  that  they  must  agree  on  all  questions  whatever,  or  that  they 
w  must  pretend  to  agree  where  there  was  a  real  difference,  or  that 
they  must  leave  each  individual  member  of  their  body  to  take  the 
course  which  his  own  opinion  and  inclination  dictated.  Now,  that 
there  should  be  a  perfect  agreement  between  Ministers  on  all  ques 
tions,  they  knew  to  be  impossible.  That  was  not  his  expression,  it 
was  the  expression  of  one  who  had  long  been  the  brightest  orna 
ment  of  that  House — Lord  Chatham.  That  great  man  said, 
"  Talk  of  divided  houses  !  Why,  there  never  was  an  instance  of 
an  united  Cabinet !  When  were  the  minds  of  twelve  men  ever  cast 
in  one  and  the  same  mould  ?"  They  knew  that  even  if  two  men 
were  brought  up  together  from  their  childhood — if  they  followed 
the  same  course  of  study,  mixed  in  the  same  society,  communi 
cated  their  sentiments  to  each  other  on  all  topics  with  perfect  free- 


THE     BALLOT.  293 

dom,  and  exercised  a  mutual  influence  in  forming  each  other's 
minds,  a  perfect  agreement  between  them  on  political  subjects 
could  never  be  expected.  How  then  was  it  possible  that  this 
agreement  could  subsist  between  a  cabinet  of  several  persons  imper 
fectly  acquainted  with  each  other  ?  Every  Government — he  spoke 
neither  of  the  present  Government,  nor  of  the  late  Government, 
nor  of  the  Government  which  seemed  about  to  be  formed  the 
other  day — was  constructed  in  such  a  manner  that  forty  or  fifty 
gentlemen,  some  of  whom  had  never  seen  each  other's  faces  till  they 
were  united  officially,  or  had  been  in  hot  opposition  to  each  other 
all  the  rest  of  their  lives,  were  brought  into  intimate  connexion. 
He  meant  to  cast  no  reflection  whatever  on  either  side  of  the 
House,  but  such  was  the  general  character  of  all  Governments,  and 
complete  unanimity  in  any  was  out  of  the  question.  It  would,  in 
truth,  be  an  absolute  miracle.  Only  two  courses,  therefore,  remained. 
Either  there  might  be  a  semblance  of  unanimity,  where  unanimity 
really  was  not,  or  each  person  might  be  left  to  act  on  his  own 
opinions.  He  did  not  profess  any  extraordinary  degree  of  prudery 
on  matters  of  political  morality.  He  was  perfectly  aware  that  in 
Parliament  it  was  impossible  any  thing  great  could  be  done  with 
out  co-operation,  and  he  was  aware  that  there  could  be  no  co 
operation  without  mutual  .compromise.  He  admitted,  therefore, 
that  men  were  justified,  when  united  into  a  party,  either  in  office 
or  in  opposition,  in  making  mutual  concessions,  in  opposing 
measures,  which  they  might,  as  individuals,  think  desirable,  in 
assenting  to  those  which  they  might  consider  objectionable,  and  giv 
ing  their  votes,  not  with  reference  to  the  mere  terms  of  the  question 
put  from  the  chair,  but  with  reference  to  the  general  state  of  poli 
tical  parties.  All  this  he  admitted.  If  there  were  any  person  who 
thought  it  wrong,  he  respected  the  tenderness  of  his  conscience, 
but  that  person's  vocation  was  not  for  a  public  life.  That  person 
should  select  a  quieter  path  for  his  passage  through  life,  one  in 
which  he  might  play  a  useful  and  respectable  part ;  but  he  was  as 


294  THE     BALLOT. 

completely  unfitted  for  the  turmoils  of  political  strife  as  a  Quaker, 
by  his  religious  principles,  was  prevented  from  undertaking  the 
command  of  a  regiment  of  horse.  Thus  far  he  admitted  the  prin 
ciple  of  party  combinations,  but  he  admitted  that  they  might  be 
carried  too  far — that  they  had  been  carried  too  far.  That  a  Mem 
ber  of  the  House  should  say  "  No,"  to  a  proposition  which  he 
believed  to  be  essentially  just  and  necessary — that  he  should 
steadily  vote  through  all  its  stages  in  favour  of  a  bill  that  he 
believed  would  have  pernicious  consequences,  was  conduct  which 
he  (Mr.  Macaulay)  should  think  was  not  to  be  defended.  Such  a 
course  of  action  was  not  reconcileable  to  a  plain  man,  whose  notions 
of  morality  were  not  drawn  from  the  casuists.  He  only  defended 
the  principle  of  mutual  action  among  political  partisans  as  being  a 
peculiar  exception  from  the  great  general  rules  of  political  morality, 
and  it  was  clear,  that  an  exception  from  the  great  rules  of  political 
morality  should  be  most  strictly  construed,  that  it  should  not  be 
needlessly  extended,  and,  above  all,  that  it  should  not  be  converted 
into  the  rule.  Therefore,  he  said,  that  in  the  members  of  a  Govern 
ment,  any  concession  of  opinion  which  was  not  necessary  to  the 
efficient  conduct  of  affairs,  to  cordial  co-operation,  was  to  be  looked 
upon  as  unjustifiable.  In  saying  this,  he  was  not  pleading  for  any 
innovation,  he  was  attacking  a  modern  _basis  of  action,  and  recom 
mending  a  return  to  the  sounder  and  better  maxims  of  the  last 
generation.  Nothing  was  more  common  than  to  hear  it  said,  that 
the  first  time  when  a  great  question  was  left  open,  was  when  Lord 
Liverpool's  Administration  left  the  Catholic  question  open.  Now, 
there  could  not  be  a  grosser  error.  Within  the  memory  of  many 
persons  living,  the  general  rule  was  this,  that  all  questions  what 
ever  were  open  questions  in  a  cabinet,  except  those  which  came 
under  two  classes — namely,  first,  measures  brought  forward  by  the 
Government  as  a  Government,  which  all  the  members  of  it  were, 
of  course,  expected  to  support ;  and,  second,  motions  brought  for 
ward  with  the  purpose  of  casting  a  censure,  express  or  implied,  on 


THE     BALLOT.  295 

the  Government,  or  any  department  of.  it,  which  all  its  members 
were,  of  course,  expected  to  oppose.  He  believed  that  he  laid 
down  a  rule  to  which  it  would  be  impossible  to  find  an  exception, 
he  was  sure  he  laid  down  a  general  rule,  when  he  said  that  "fifty 
years  ago  all  questions  not  falling  under  these  heads  were  considered 
open.  Let  gentlemen  run  their  minds  over  the  history  of  Mr.  Pitt's 
administration.  Mr.  Pitt,  of  course,  expected  that  every  Gentle 
man  connected  with  him  by  the  ties  of  office  should  support  him 
on  the  leading  questions  of  his  Government — the  India  Bill,  the 
resolutions  respecting  the  commerce  of  Ireland,  the  French  com*; 
mercial  treaty.  Of  course,  also,  he  expected,  that  no  Gentleman 
should  remain  in  thje  Government  who  had  voted  for  Mr.  Bas 
tard's  motion,  of  censure  on  the  naval  administration  of  Lord 
Howe,  or  for  Mr.  Whitbread's  motion  on  the  Spanish  armament ; 
but,  excepting  on  such  motions,  brought  forward  as  attacks 
on  Government,  perfect  liberty  was  allowed  to  his  colleagues, 
and  that  not  merely  on  trifles,  but  on  constitutional  questions 
of  vital  importance.  The  question  of  Parliamentary  reform 
was  left  open ;  Mr.  Pitt  and  Mr.  Pundas  were  in  favour  of 
it,  Lord  Mulgrave  and  Lord  Grenville  against  it.  On  the  im 
peachment  of  Warren  Hastings,  likewise,  the  different  Mem 
bers  of  Government  were  left  to  pursue  their  own  course ;  that 
governor  was  attacked  by  Mr.  Pitt,  and  defended  by  Lord  Mul 
grave.  In  1790  the  question,  whether  the  impeachment  should  be 
considered  as  having  dropped,  in  consequence  of  the  termination 
of  the  Parliament,  in  which  the  proceedings  were  commenced,  was 
left  an  open  question  ;  Mr,  Pitt  took  one  side,  and  was  answered 
by  his  own  Solicitor-general,  Sir  J.  Scott,  afterwards  Lord  Eldon. 
The  important  question  respecting  the  powers  of  juries  in  cases  of 
libel  was  left  open  ;  Mr.  Pitt  took  a  view  favourable  to  granting 
them  extensive  powers,  Lord  Grenville  and  Lord  Thurlow  "opposed 
him.  The  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  was  also  an  open  question. 
Mr.  Pitt  and  Lord  Grenville  were  favourable  to  it;  Mr.  Dundas 


296  THE     BALLOT. 

and  Lord  Thurlow  were  among  the  most  conspicuous  defenders  of 
the  slave  trade.  All  these  instances  had  occurred  in  the  space  of 
about  five  years.  Were  they  not  sufficient  to  prove  how  absurdly 
and  ignorantly  those  persons  spoke  who  told  us,  that  the  practice 
of  open  questions  was  a  mere  innovation  of  our  own  time  ?  There 
were  men  now  living — great  men,  held  in  honour  and  reverence — 
Lord  Grey,  Lord  Wellesley,  Lord  Holland,  and  others,  who  well 
remembered,  that  at  an  early  period  of  their  public  life,  the  law  of 
libel,  the  slave  trade,  Parliamentary  reform,  were  all  open  ques 
tions,  supported  by  one  section  of  the  Cabinet,  and  opposed  bj 
another.  Was  this  the  effect  of  any  extraordinary  weakness  or 
timidity  on  the  part  of  the  statesman  then  Prime  Minister  ?  No  ; 
Mr.  Pitt  was  a  man,  whom  even  his  enemies  and  detractors  always 
acknowledge,  possessed  of  manly,  brave,  and  commanding  spirit. 
And  was  the  effect  of  this  policy  to  enfeeble  his  Administration,  to 
daunt  his  adherents,  to  render  them  unable  to  withstand  the 
attacks  of  the  Opposition  2  On  the  contrary,  never  did  a  ministry 
present  a  firmer  or  more  serried  front  to  Opposition,  nor  had  he 
the  slightest  doubt  but  that  their  strength  was  increased  in  conse 
quence  of  giving  each  Member  more  individual  liberty.  Where 
there  were  no  open  questions,  opinions  might  be  restrained  for  a 
time,  but  sooner  or  later  they  would  show  themselves,  and  when 
they  did,  what  would  be  the  consequence  ?  Not,  as  in  Mr.  Pitt's 
time,  when  one  Minister  would  speak  against  a  measure  and 
another  for  it — when  one  would  divide  with  the  ayes,  and  another 
with  the  noes,  and  as  Mr.  Pitt  and  Mr.  Dundas  did,  all  in  perfect 
good  humour,  lest  the  Government  should  be  dissolved.  Now, 
as  soon  as  one  Cabinet  Minister  got  up  and  declared  that  he  could 
not  support  the  view  taken  by  another  upon  any  question,  what 
was  the  result  ?  The  result  had  been  seen.  They  all  remembered 
the  manner  in  which  the  Government  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington, 
in  1828,  dispensed  with  the  services  of  some  members  of  the  cabinet, 
in  consequence  of  a  difference  of  opinion  upon  a  subject  on  which 


THE     BALLOT.  297 

not  one  of  Mr.  Pitt's  colleagues  would  have  asked  permission  to 
vote  against  him.  He  did  not  pretend  to  draw  the  line  precisely, 
but  he  was  satisfied  that  of  late  the  line  had  been  drawn  in  an 
improper  and  inconsiderate  manner.  It  was  time  they  should 
return  to  better  maxims,  maxims  which  had  been  shown  by  expe 
rience  to  be  sound  and  good.  He  was  perfectly  satisfied  that  the 
present  Government  would  find,-  by  taking  'this  course  on  the  pre 
sent  occasion,  that  they  had  increased  their  strength  and  raised  their 
character.  Now,  to  come  to  the  particular  question  before  the 
House,  he  should  vote  for  the  motion  of  the  hon.  Member  for  the 
city  of  London.  He  wished  to  explain  that,  in  doing  this,  he  was 
merely  to  be  understood  as  giving  a  declaration  in  favour  of  the  prin 
ciple  of  secret  voting.  He  desired  to  be  understood  as  reserving  to 
himself  the  right  of  withholding  his  support  from  any  bill  which, 
when  he  examined  its  details,  did  not  appear  to  contain  such  provi 
sions  as  would  efi'ect  the  object  he  had  in  view.  He  must  reserve  to 
himself,  also,  the  right  of  considering  how  far  he  could,  with  pro 
priety,  give  his  support  to  any  bill  which  should  not  be  accompanied 
or  preceded  by  some  measure  for  improving  the  mode  of  revising  the 
registration.  He  should  think  it  most  disingenuous  to  give  a  popu 
lar  vote,  saddling  it  with  a  condition  which  he  thought  either  im 
possible  or  exceedingly  difficult  of  fulfilment.  Such  was  not  his 
opinion.  He  had  no  doubt  that  it  was  possible  to  provide  machi 
nery  which  should  give  both  to  the  voter  and  to  the  country  all  the 
security  which  the  transactions  of  human  life  admitted,  and  he  had 
as  little  doubt  that  it  was  possible  to  devise  a  tribunal,  whose 
decision  on  a  vote  before  the  election  would  command  as  much 
public  confidence  as  the  decisions  of  committees  of  that  House  after 
elections.  Subject  to  these  two  conditions  he  would  give  his  sup 
port  to  the  vote  by  ballot.  He  could  not  say  that  he  did  so  upon 
the  grounds  on  which  many  of  the  supporters  of  the  ballot  rested 
their  case,  because  he  by  no  means  conceived,  like  many  of  them, 

that  this  was  a  case  on  which  all  the  arguments  lay  on  one  side. 

13* 


298  THE     BALLOT. 

He  admitted  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  advantages  that  would  be 
derived  from  this  measure  would  be  very  great;  but,  admitting 
and  feeling  this,  still  he  was  not  surprised  that  very  wise  and  very 
virtuous  men  hesitated  on  this  subject,  and  that  such  men  came, 
on  this  subject,  to  a  conclusion  different  from  his.  They  must  in 
this,  as  in  almost  every  other  question  of  human  affairs,  balance  the 
I  good  with  the  good,  and  the  evil  with  the  evil.  He  fully  admitted 
J  that  the  ballot  would  withdraw  the  voter  from  the  influence  of 
(  something  that  was  good  as  well  as  from  the  influence  of  something 
I  that  was  bad.  He  admitted  that  it  took  away  the  salutary  check  of 
public  opinion,  as  well  as  the  pernicious  effect  of  intimidation.  He 
\  was  compelled  to  strike  a  balance,  and  take  refuge  in  the  ballot,  as 
\  the  lesser  of  two  evils.  He  did  not,  he  must  say,  altogether  agree 
with  the  Member  for  the  city  of  London,  if  he  perfectly  understood 
him,  in  thinking  that  the  ballot  would  secure  thai  entire  prevention 
of  the  bribery  of  voters  which,  on  this  subject,  the  hon.  Member 
seemed  inclined  to  hope.  In  small  constituencies,  he  did  think 
that  bribery  would  continue,  although,  at  the  same  time,  it  might 
not  be  so  extensively  entered  into.  He  considered  that  the  ballot 
was  a  remed)r,  a  specific  remedy,  and  the  only  remedy  for  the  evils 
of  intimidation ;  and  upon  this  ground  he  gave  it  his  support. 
There  was  a  time  when  he,  like  the  noble  Lord  who  seconded  the 
motion  of  the  hon.  Member  for  London,  was  inclined  to  hope  that 
those  evils,  like  many  other  evils  which  had  yielded  to  the  force  of 
public  opinion  and  the  progress  of  intelligence,  would  die  a  natural 
death.  That  hope  he  had  been  compelled  to  relinquish.  He 
believed  the  evil  to  be  a  growing  evil,  and  he  was  satisfied  that  it 
had  made  progress  within  the  last  seven  years.  He  believed  it 
had  made  progress  within  the  last  three  years.  He  could  not 
disguise  from  himself  that  the  growth  of  this  evil  was,  in  some 
measure,  to  be  imputed  to  the  Reform  Act;  and,  in  saying  this, 
he  only  said  it  in  common  of  the  Reform  Act,  and  of  almost 
every  great  measure.  The  Reformation  of  the  Church,  they  all 


THE     BALLOT.  299 

knew,  produced  classes  of  society  and  moral  evils  that  were 
unknown  in  the  time  of  the  Plantagenets.  The  Revolution  pro 
duced  a  description  of  abuses  that  were  unknown  in  the  time 
of  the  Stuarts ;  and  the  Reform  Act.  although  he  believed  no 
measure  was  more  generally  pleasing  to  the  country,  like  the  Re 
formation  of  the  Church  and  the  Revolution,  produced  some  new, 
and  aggravated  some  old,  evils  ;  it  swept  away  many  abuses,  but 
it  seemed  to  him  to  have  given  a  deeper  and  more  malignant 
energy  to  the  abuses  which  it  spared.  It  swept  away  many  of  the 
old  channels  of  corrupt  influence,  but,  in  those  channels  which  it 
had  not  swept  away,  the  corrupt  current  not  only  still  ran  on,  but 
it  ran  on  deeper,  and  stronger,  and  fouler  than  ever.  It  destroyed, 
or,  if  it  did  not  destroy,  it  restricted  within  narrow  limits,  the  old 
practice  of  direct  nomination  ;  but,  in  doing  so,  he  believed  it  gave 
a  new  impulse  to  the  practice  of  intimidation,  and  this  at  the  very 
moment  when  it  conferred  the  franchise  on  thousands  of  electors, 
and  thus  placed  them  in  a  situation  in  which  they  were  most  open 
to  influence  and  intimidation.  It  was  impossible  to  close  then 
eyes  to  the  evidence  that  was  offered  to  them  on  every  side.  If  he 
believed  the  outcry  raised,  not  by  one  party,  or  from  one  corner  of 
the  kingdom,  but  by  Tories,  Whigs,  and  Radicals,  in  England, 
Scotland,  and  Ireland,  he  must  believe  that  there  were,  sitting  in 
that  House,  Gentlemen  who  owed  their  seats  to  votes  extorted  by 
fear.  And  he  said,  that  if  there  was  any  Gentleman  in  that  House 
who  owed  his  seat  to  such  means,  it  were  infinitely  better  that  he 
sat  there  for  Old  Sarum  ;  for,  by.  sitting  there  for  Old  Sarum,  he 
would  be  no  Representative  of  the  people,  nor  was  he  a  Represen 
tative  of  the  people  now.  At  Old  Sarum  there  were  no  threats  of 
ejectments  because  a  voter  had  more  regard  to  his  public  duty 
than  to  his  private  interest.  At  Old  Sarum  the  voter  was  never 
put  to  the  alternative  whether  he  would  abandon  his  principles,  or 
reduce  his  family  to  distress.  All  tyranny  was  bad. ;  but  the  worst 
was  that  which  worked  with  the  machinery  of  freedom.  Under 


300  THE     BALLOT. 

an  undisguised  oligarchy,  the  people  suffered  only  the  evil  of  being 
governed  by  those  whom  they  had  not  chosen  ;  but,  to  what 
ever  extent  intimidation  mixed  itself  up  with  the  system  of  popu 
lar  election,  to  that  extent  the  people  suffered  both  the  evil  of 
being  governed  by  those  whom  they  had  not.  chosen,  and  the  evil 
of  being  coerced  into  a  professed  choice.  A  great  number  of  human 
beings  were  thus  mere  machines  through  whom  the  great  proprie 
tors  expressed  their  pleasure,  and  the  greater  their  number,  the 
greater  the  extent  of  misery  and  degradation.  The  noble  Lord 
who  had  seconded  the  motion  said,  and  most  justly  said,  that  he 
did  not  wish,  in  supporting  this  motion,  to  deprive  wealth  of  its 
legitimate  influence.  Wealth,  under  any  system,  must  always 
retain  its  legitimate  influence.  Wealth  was  power,  and  power 
justly  and  kindly  used  necessarily  inspired  affection.  Wealth,  or 
that  which  was  so,  compared  with  what  was  possessed  by  the  great 
mass  of  electors,  was  closely  connected  with  intellectual  superiority. 
It  enabled  its  possessor  to  select  and  prosecute  any  study  to  which 
he  might  be  inclined  ;  to  continue  it  when  those  who  commenced 
life  with  him,  under  less  favourable  circumstances,  were  forced  to 
drudge  for  their  daily  bread ;  to  enlarge  his  mind  by  foreign 
travel :  to  acquire  an  intimacy  with  the  history  of  nations,  and 
with  the  arts  and  sciences.  These  vfere  advantages  to  which  it 
was  impossible  that  constituencies  could  be  blind  ;  nay,  going 
much  below  those  who  formed  the  present  body  of  electors,  and 
descending  to  the  very  lowest  of  the  populace,  it  never  was  found 
that,  even  in  their  wildest  aberrations,  they  chose  a  leader  desti 
tute  of  these  recommendations.  This  was  the  natural,  the  inde 
structible,  the  legitimate,  the  salutary  influence  of  wealth.  What 
ever  was  more  than  this  was  corruption ;  and  if  it  were  thought 
necessary,  as  it  appeared  from  the  speech  of  the  hon.  Member  who 
had  last  spoken,  that  some  persons  in  that  House  did  think  it 
necessary  to  maintain  the  influence  of  bribery  in  our  elective  sys 
tem,  then  he  said,  that  incomparably  the  best  and  least  objection- 


THE     BALLOT.  301 

able  method  was  that  of  open  bribery.  But  against  bribery  they 
enacted  laws  ;  against  bribery  they  passed  resolutions ;  for  bri 
bery,  boroughs  were  disfranchised ;  for  bribery,  Members  were 
unseated ;  for  bribery  indictments  and  informations  were  pre 
ferred  ;  for  bribery,  the  penalties  extended  both  to  the  elector  and  the 
elected ;  one  man  was  disqualified,  another  man  fined.  On  what 
principle  did  they  inflict  penalties  on  the  elector — on  what  prin 
ciple  but  this,  that,  from  having  dealt  in  pecuniary  corruption» 
the  elector  was  no  longer  fit  to  exercise  the  right  of  voting  ?  But 
what  was  the  operation  of  intimidation  ?  It  was  this — "  Vote  with 
me,  or  give  up  my  custom.  Vote  with  me,  or  give  up  your  farm." 
Or  it  was  thus — "Vote  with  me,  and  I  will  give  you  20/.  for  a 
pair  of  boots."  Why,  surely  it  was  notorious  that  this  was  one  of 
the  constant  forms  of  corruption.  "  Vote  with  me,  and  I  will  give 
you  20£.  for  a  pair  of  boots,"  was  a  common  and  constant  form  of 
corruption,  though  less  so,  perhaps,  because  less  easy,  than  "  Vote 
for  me,  or  I  will  carry  my  custom  to  the  boot-maker's  in  the  next 
street."  On  what  possible  pretext  could  any  man  defend  such  an 
exercise  of  the  power  of  wealth  as  this  \  And  here  he  must  say,  that 
he  almost  dissented  from  the  form  of  expression  used  by  the  hon. 
Member  for  London  in  his  eloquent  and  excellent  speech ;  he 
objected  to  the  lion.  Member  making  an  antithesis  between  intimi 
dation  and  corruption.  He  said,  that  intimidation  was  corruption 
in  its  worst  and  most  loathsome  form,  stripped  of  every  seduction, 
of  every  blandishment,  of  everything  that  had  the  appearance  of 
liberality  and  good  humour ;  a  hard,  strict,  cruel  corruption,  seeking 
by  means  most  foul,  a  most  loathsome  end.  It  was  corruption 
working  by  barbarity  ;  and  this  sort  of  corruption,  this  general  sort 
of  corruption,  was,  most  unhappily,  the  easiest  and  cheapest  of  all. 
Corruption  by  gifts  costs  something,  but  corruption  by  threats  cost 
nothing  but  the  crime.  It  was  only  of  a  superfluity  out  of 
what  was  left  after  expending  all  that  was  necessary  for  the  sup 
port  of  a  family,  that  corruption  by  giving  commenced:  but  how 


302  THE     BALLOT. 

much  worse  was  the  corruption  of  taking  away  ?  The  man  who 
practised  intimidation  was  under  no  necessity  of  mortgaging  his 
estate  to  prepare  for  an  election :  nay,  at  the  same  time  that  he 
improved  perhaps  his  lands,  by  the  very  mode  of  administering  the 
economy  of  his  family,  he  was  able  to  effect  by  intimidation  all 
the  purposes  of  corruption  to  a  greater  extent,  and  with  more  com 
plete  demoralization,  than  had  ever  been  seen  in  Grampound  or 
East  Retford.  But  not  only  was  intimidation  worked  easily  and 
cheaply,  but  it  was  also  most  trying  to  the  virtue  of  the  persons 
that  were  subjected  to  it,  inasmuch  as  it  was  much  more  easy  to 
refuse  that  which  a  man  never  had,  than  to  submit  to  be  pillaged 
of  that  which  he  was  accustomed  to  have.  Many  men  who  would 
not  hesitate  Co  throw  down  a  purse  if  it  were  offered  to  him  to  vote 
for  a  particular  candidate,  would  nevertheless  vote  against  his  con 
science  for  fear  of  an  ejectment.  And  he  found,  that  this  corrup 
tion,  which  was  the  greatest,  the  easiest,  the  cheapest,  and  the  most 
trying  to  the  party,  was  also  the  safest  of  all.  It  was  also  that 
sort  of- corruption  which  they  allowed  and  must  allow  with  perfect 
impunity.  They  could  punish  to  a  certain  extent  that  good- 
humoured  corruption  which  corrupted  by  making  men  happy,  but 
they  could  not  punish  that  malignant  corruption  that  corrupted  by 
making  men  miserable.  They  could  not  set  up  an  inquisitorial 
tribunal  that  would  be  entitled  to  ask  these  questions  : — "-Why  did 
you  not  continue  such  a  lease — what  fault  did  you  find — did  not 
the  tenant  do  justice  to  the  land — did  he  not  pay  his  rent — was 
he  disrespectful — and  if  not  for  his  vote,  why  did  you  turn  him 
out  ?"  Or,  to  take  the  instance  of  a  tailor  after  the  Westminster 
election,  could  you  put  such  questions  as  these : — "  Why  have  you 
left  him — had  he  not  suited  you — did  he  not  fit  you  well — were 
his  charges  too  high — and  if  not  for  his  vote,  why  did  you  leave 
him  ?"  Such  a  remedy  would  be  worse  than  the  disease.  Pro 
perty  ceased  to  be  property,  if  they  called  upon  the  proprietor  for 
any  reasons  other  than  mere  will  and  caprice,  to  state  why  he  dis- 


THE     BALLOT.  303 

charged  his  tailor  or  other  tradesman.  In  what  position,  then,  did 
they  stand  ?  Here  was,  as  it  seemed  to  him,  a  great  evil — a  grow 
ing  evil — an  evil  much  more  fearful  than  many  which  had  under 
gone  the  direct  censure  of  the  law.  But  it  was  so  intertwined  with 
the  institution  of  property,  that  if  they  attempted  to  strike  at  it  by 
means  of  an  enacting  bill,  they  would  inflict  necessarily  a  wound 
upon  the  institution  of  property.  It  seemed  to  him,  then,  con 
sidering  punishment  out  of  the  question,  that  they  could  only  try 
means  of  prevention.  What  were  the  means  of  prevention  sug 
gested  ?  Absolutely  none,  except  the  ballot.  Here,  then,  or  no 
where  we  can  find  means  of  reconciling  the  rights  of  property  with 
the  rights  of  suffrage.  In  this  way,  only,  could  they  enable  each 
party  really  to  do  what  he  liked  with  his  own.  The  estate  was 
the  landlord's,  the  vote  was  the  tenant's."  "So  use  your  own 
rights,"  was  the  language  of  all  civil  as  well  as  moral  law,  "  as  not 
to  interfere  with  the  rights  of  others."  But  here,  it  should  be 
remarked,  they  could  not  give  the  one  right  without  infringing  or 
rather  destroying  the  other.  Through  a  system  of  open  voting, 
they  could  not  give  the  landlord  that  dominion  over  his  estate 
which  he  ought  to  have,  without  throwing  in  the  dominion  over  his 
tenants'  votes  which  he  ought  not  to-  have,  and  under  the  same 
system  of  open  voting  they  could  not  protect  the  tenant's  vote  with 
out  interfering  with  the  landlord's  property.  Under  a  system  of 
open  voting,  with  rights  opposed  to  each  other,  it  was  impossible 
to  reconcile  the  differences  between  these  two  great  principles  on 
which  depended  the  whole  national  prosperity,  liberty  and  pro 
perty.  If,  then,  there  was  any  mode  of  reconciling  these  princi 
ples,  ought  they  not  eagerly  to  embrace  it,  and  most  seriously  to 
consider  whether  they  would  not  find  in  the  ballot  the  mode  of 
reconciling  them  ?  Whether  the  ballot  would  not  give  equal  and 
perfect  protection  to  both  ?  Whether  it  would  not  give  to  each 
just  what  they  ought  to  have  and  nothing  more  than  each  ought 
to  have  ?  If  this  were,  as  he  really  believed  it  would  be,  the  effect 


304  THE      BALLOT, 

of  the  ballot,  if  here,  and  here  only,  they  could  find  a  solution  of 
those  difficulties,  surely  no  slight  objections  ought  to  deter  them 
from  adopting  it.  The  objection  to  the  ballot,  though  by  no  means 
the  only  one  raised  in  discussion,  which  appeared  to  throw  any  real 
difficulty  in  the  way  of  carrying  it,  was,  as  had  been  said  by  an  elo 
quent,  ingenious,  and  lively  speaker,  that  in  the  minds  of  the  people 
there  was  a  moral  objection  to  it,  otherwise  nothing  could  prevent 
for  a  single  session  the  carrying  of  the  principle  of  vote  by  ballot. 
He  must  own  that  this  objection,  highly  respectable  as  many  of 
those  who  entertain  it  were,  did  not  seem  to  him  sound  or  well 
considered,  because  he  hardly  thought  that  it  could  be  entertained 
by  any  respectable  and  sensible  person,  who  considered  for  a  mo 
ment  what  was  the  amount  of  the  evil  effected  by  the  present  system. 
Surely  if  it  were  immoral  to  tell  an  untruth,  at  least  it  was  equally 
immoral,  having  received  a  great  public  trust  for  the  public  good, 
to  employ  that  trust  to  an  evil  purpose.  If  it  were  un-English  not 
to  dare  to  own  the  vote  that  was  given,  surely  it  was  more  un-Eng 
lish  not  to  dare  to  vote  as  he  thought  right.  When  the  word 
un-English  was  used,  they  were  compelled  to  contrast  their  idea 
of  that  bold  and  sturdy  independence  which  had  been  their  great 
pride  as  a  national  characteristic,  with  the  situation  of  a  man,  who, 
holding  his  farm  from  year  to  year,  is  compelled  by  fear  of  pecu 
niary  loss  and  ruin  to  poll  against  him  whom  he  wished  to  see 
chaired,  and  to  vote  for  the  candidate  whom,  with  all  his  heart,  he 
would  see  well  ducked.  At  present  they  knew  that  many  dis 
honest  votes  were  given,  but  let  the  system  of  secrecy  in  voting  be 
introduced  and  they  would  have  honest  votes,  although  the  parties 
might  afterwards  deny  that  they  had  given  them.  Which  was 
the  greater  evil  of  the  two  ?  '  God  forbid  that  he  should  say  any 
thing  that  should  seem  to  extenuate  the  guilt  of  falsehood,  but  God 
forbid,  also,  that  he  should  not  make  some  allowance  for  the  poor  as 
well  as  for  the  rich.  God  forbid  that  he  should  see  more  distinctly 
the -mote  in  the  eye  of  the  10/.  householder,  than  the  beam  in  the 


THE     BALLOT.  305 

eye  of  a  baron  or  a  bishop.  If  morality  were  anything  more  than 
capricious  favour  or  mere  pretext,  they  would  have  ample  oppor 
tunities  of  exercising  it,  without  waiting  till  the  ballot  became  the 
law  of  the  land,  or  without  even  descending  below  their  own  rank 
in  life.  If  it  were  criminal  in  a  man  to  utter  an  untruth  for  the 
purpose  of  guarding  a  secret  against  private  curiosity,  then  he 
would  say,  that  they  would  find  many  criminals  of  a  far  higher 
station,  and  of  a  far  more  cultivated  intellect,  than  the  bakers  and 
butchers  about  whose  veracity  they  were  so  anxious.  He  would 
take  a  single  illustration  from  the  case  of  anonymous  writers.  It 
was  perfectly  notorious  that  men  of  high  consideration,  men  of  the 
first  distinction,  had  written  books  and-  published  them  without 
their  names,  and  on  being  questioned,  had  denied  that  they  were 
the  authors  of  the  works  they  had  written  ;  and  yet  this  denial  did 
not  prevent  them  from  being  generally  considered  with  respect  and 
kindness  in  society.  They  had  also  seen  casuists  of  great  repute 
defend  those  parties.  One  illustrious  name  he  would  instance, 
which  would  no  doubt  suggest  itself  to  all  who  heard  him,  the 
name  of  a  first-rate  man  of  genius,  of  excellent  principles,  and  a 
noble  spirit — he  need  hardly  add  the  name  of  Sir  Walter  Scott. 
Sir  Walter  Scott  published  without  his  name  that  eminent  and 
popular  series  of  novels  which  had  endeared  him  to  all  his  country 
men,  nay,  almost  all  the  world,  and  which  he  for  one  could  not 
think  upon  without  feelings  of  the  deepest  admiration  and  grati 
tude.  Sir  Walter  Scott  published  this  series  of  novels  anony 
mously,  and  to  all  questions  put  to  him  on  the  subject,  persisted  in 
denying  the  authorship  of  them,  till  at  length  he  consented  to  drop 
the  veil  of  concealment,  and  acknowledged  them  to  be  the  produc 
tions  of  his  pen.  Now  he  would  ask — and  he  appealed  to  many 
who  were  personally  acquainted  with  that  great  man — he  would 
appeal  to  them  and  ask,  did  this  concealment  and  subsequent 
avowal  of  his  name  reflect  any  shame  on  the  character  of  Sir  W. 
Scott  ? — did  any  one  of  the  large  circle  of  his  friends  and  admirers 


306  THE     BALLOT. 

consider  that  Sir  W.  Scott  had  dishonoured  himself  by  this  pro 
ceeding.  All  that  he  demanded  was  this,  that  we  should,  in  the 
purity  of  our  own  moral  feelings,  think  of  the  moral  feelings  of 
other  classes,  as  well  as  of  those  belonging  to  that  class  to  which 
we  ourselves  belonged  ;  that  we  should  have  one  weight  and  one 
measure  ;  and  that  we  should  extend  to  those  untruths  by  means 
of  which  the  poor  man  seeks  to  protect  himself  from  the  encroach 
ments  of  the  gentleman,  that  pardon  which  we  extend  to  the 
untruths  by  which  one  gentleman  defends  himself  from  the  imper 
tinent  curiosity  of  another.  He  did  not  pretend  to  be  a  casuist,  nor 
to  be  accustomed  to  weigh  questions-  of  this  nature  in  a  very  nice 
balance,  but  he  should  hesitate,  he  almost  thought,  to  advise  an 
elector  now-a-days  to  tell  the  truth  and  take  the  consequences. 
They  had  no  right  to  expect  sacrifices  of  that  kind  from  every 
body,  or  count  on  the  moral  courage  to  make  them.  As  for  the 
honest  electors,  that  class  of  men — village  Hampdens,  Grey  would 
have  called  them — they  would  be  honest  still  if  this  measure  were 
adopted.  The  man  who  would  utter  untruths  when  he  had  the 
ballot,  was  the  man  who  would  now  be  ready  to  give  a  corrupt 
vote.  In  fact,  there  was  the  same  breach  of  faith  in  the  one  course 
as  in  the  other.  He  was  for  neither.  Of  the  two  alternatives — 
of  the  two  chances  of  evil — he  thought  the  latter  was  to  be  pre 
ferred.  In  short,  if  the  voters  could  not  at  once  keep  faith  with 
their  country,  and  with  their  corruptors,  he  was  one  who  wished 
that  we  should  have  a  system  by  which  their  faith  might  be  kept 
to  their  country,  and  broken  to  their  corruptors.  If  there  were 
one  system  under  which,  more  than  another,  it  were  easy  for  the 
elector  to  break  his  faith  to  the  country,  while  he  kept  it  with  his 
corruptor,  that  system  was  the  present.  Another  objection,  which 
was  sometimes  put  forward,  was  contained  in  this  question,  "  Will 
you  disturb  that  settlement  which  was  made  by  the  Reform  Bill,  and 
which  we  were  then  told  was  to  be  final  ?"  On  this  point  he  fully 
agreed  with  the  hon.  Member  for  the  city  of  London.  He  thought 


THE     BALLOT.  307 

that  this  question  had  been  expressly  reserved  at  the  time  of  carry 
ing  the  Reform  Bill ;  nor  was  he  aware  that  a  single  person  con 
sidered  himself,  by  supporting  the  Reform  Bill,  to  be  pledged  to 
do  without  the  ballot.  Now,  with  regard  to  the  finality  of  the 
Reform  Bill ;  he  had  always  regarded  that  great  measure  with 
reverence, — but  a  rational,  not  a  superstitious  reverence ;  and  he 
conceived  that  the  question,  whether  it  should  be  amended  or  not, 
should  be  considered  upon  no  other  principles,  but  the  ordinary 
principles  of  public  good.  He  saw  many  and  strong  arguments 
against  frequent  and  violent  changes  in  our  constitutional  system. 
He  could  not  conceal  from  himself  that  the  great  revolution  of 
1832 — for  revolution  it  was,  and  a  most  fearful  and  sanguinary 
revolution  it  would  have  been  in  any  other  nation  than  this — that 
revolution  was  effected  here  without  civil  disorder,  and  without 
the  effusion  of  blood ;  but  unquestionably  the  passing  of  the  bill 
was  attended  with  much  excitement  and  danger.  That  excitement 
and  that  danger  he  was  not  desirous  to  renew.  He  would  bear 
with  many  inconveniences  rather  than  open  a  similar  scene ;  nay, 
lie  would  bear  with  many  grievances  rather  than  agree  to  re-open 
the  .whole  representative,  system  which  was  established  by  the 
Reform  Act.  But  if  any  man  argued  that  the  Reform  Act  ought 
to  be  final,  he  must,  at  the  same  time,  admit,  that  it  ought  to  be 
effectual,  otherwise  they  would  have  cut  off  one  form  of  misrepresen 
tation  merely  to  have  it  replaced  by  another.  They  must  not  allow 
that  which  they  meant  as  a  franchise,  to  be  turnecl  into  a  species  of 
villein  service,  more  degrading  by  far  than  any  that  belonged  to 
the  dark  era  of  the  14th  century.  It  was  not  that  threats  should 
be  substituted  in  the  place  of  bribery — it  was  not  for  that  result  that 
the  aristocracy  had  been  conquered  in  their  own  strongholds ;  but 
it  was  for  the  establishment  of  a  genuine  suffrage,  and  of  real,  not 
pernicious,  rights,  that  the  Church,  the  aristocracy,  and  the  Court 
together  had  been  made  to  give  way  before  the  determined  voice 
of  a  united  people.  The  object  of  that  mighty  movement  was  not 


308  THE     BALLOT. 

that  old  abuses  should  be  brought  back  under  new  denominations, 
that  the  place  of  Old  Sarum,  the  rotten  borough,  should  be  sup 
plied  by  other  Old  Saruras,  under  the  respectable  names  of  coun 
ties  and  divisions  of  counties.  No,  nor  was  the  time  far  remote, 
when  this  nation,  with  a  voice  as  imperative  as  that  with  which 
she  demanded  the  Reform  Bill,  would  demand  that  the  Reform 
Bill  be  carried  out  in  the  truth  of  its  noble  principle,  and  when  that 
just  and  reasonable  demand  was  conceded,  as  conceded  it  would 
be,  arid  the  franchise  of  every  voter  should  be  made  a  franchise 
indeed,  they  would  find,  that  instead  pf  having  led  the  way,  by 
this  step,  to  reckless  spoliation  and  confusion,  in  truth  they  had 
strengthened  the  law,  secured  to  property  its  just  rights,  drawn 
closer  the  ties  which  united  the  two  great  orders  of  society  to  each 
other,  and  attached  both  of  them  all  the  more  to  the  law,  the  Par 
liament,  and  the  Crown. 


309 


ON  CONFIDENCE  IN  THE  MINISTRY.* 

JANUARY    29,    1840. 

IT  is  possible,  Sir,  that  the  House  may  imagine  I  rise  under  some 
little  feeling  of  irritation,  to  reply  to  the  personalities  and  accusa 
tions  of  the  right  hon.  Baronet  [Sir  J.  Graham],  I  shall  indulge 
in  neither.  It  would  be  easy  to  reply  to  them — to  recriminate 
would  be  still  easier.  Were  I  alone  personally  considered,  I  should 
think  either  course  unworthy  of  me.  I  know  that  egotism  in  this 
House  is  always  unpopular ;  on  this  occasion  it  would  be  singu 
larly  unseasonable.  If  ever  I  am  under  the  necessity  of  addressing 
this  House  on  matters  which  concern  myself,  I  hope  it  shall  be  on 
some  occasion  when  the  dearest  interests  of  the  empire  are  not 
staked  on  the  event  of  our  debate.  I  do  rise,  Sir,  to"  address  you 
under  feelings  of  deep  anxiety,  but  in  that  anxiety  there  is  not,  if  I 
know  my  own  heart,  any  mixture  of  selfish  feeling.  I  do  feel, 
indeed,  with  the  most  intense  conviction,  that  in  pleading  for  the 
Government  to  which  I  belong,  I  am  pleading  for  the  deepest  inter 
ests  of  the  Commonwealth — for  the  reformation  of  abuses,  and  for 
the  preservation  of  august  and  venerable  institutions.  I  trust,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  first  Cabinet  Minister  who,  when  the  question  is, 
whether  the  Government  be  or  be  not  worthy  of  confidence,  offers 
himself  in  debate,  will  find  some  portion  of  that  generosity  and  good 
feeling  which  once  distinguished  English  gentlemen.  But  be  this 
as  it  may,  my  voice  shall  be  heard.  I  was  saying  that  I  am 
pleading,  not  only  for  the  preservation  of  our  institutions,  but  for 
liberty  and  order,  for  justice  administered  in  mercy,  for  equal  laws, 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  15.  p.  815-835 


310  CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY. 

for  the  rights  of  conscience,  and  for  the  real  union  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland.  Sir,  I  wish  first  to  address  myself  not 
to  any  matter  relating  to  myself  alone,  but  to  those  parts 
of  the  subject  with  which  my  name  is  bound  up  in  some  de 
gree  with  the  character  of  the  Government  to  which  I  belong. 
My  opinions  are  favourable  to  secret  voting.  The  opinions  of  my 
noble  Friend  (Lord  John  Russell)  are  in  favour  of  open  voting. 
•Notwithstanding,  we  meet  as  Members  of  one  Government.  This 
has  been  made  a  topic  of  charge  against  the  Government  by  every 
Gentleman  who  has  addressed  .the  House,  from  the  hon.  Baronet 
who  opened  the  debate,  down  to  the  right  hon.  Baronet  who  spoke 
last.  Now,  Sir,  I  say  in  the  first  place,  that  if  on  account  of  this 
difference  of  opinion  we  shall  be  considered  by  the  House  unwor 
thy  of  its  confidence,  then  no  Government  for  many  years  has  been 
worthy,  is  worthy,  of  the  House  of  Commons  :  for  the  Government 
of  Mr.  Pitt,  the  Government  of  Mr.  Fox,  the  Government  of  Lord 
Liverpool,  the  Government  of  Mr.  Canning,  the  Government  of  the 
Duke  of  Wellington,  have  all  had  open  questions  on  subjects  of 
the  greatest  moment.  I  say  that  the  question  of  Parliamentary 
Reform  was  an  open  question  with  the  Government  of  Mr.  Pitt. 
Mr.  Pitt,  holding  opinions  in  favour  of  that  question,  brought  into 
the  Cabinet  Lord  Grenville,  who  did  not.  Mr.  Pitt  was  opposed  to 
the  slave  trade.  Mr.'  Dundas,  a  defender  of  it,  was  a  Member  of 
his  Government.  I  say  Mr.  Fox,  in  the  same  manner,  in  his  Cabi 
nets  of  1Y82  and  1806,  had  open  questions  of  similar  importance; 
and  I  say  that  the  Governments  of  Lord  Liverpool,  Mr.  Canning, 
and  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  left,  as  an  open  question,  Catholic 
Emancipation ;  which,  closely  connected  as  it  was  with  the  execu 
tive  Administration,  was,  perhaps,  one  of  the  last  questions  which 
should  ever  have  been  left  an  open  one  by  any  Government.  But 
to  take  still  more  important  ground,  and  to  come  to  a  question 
which  more  nearly  interests  us — suppose  you  dismiss  the  present 
Government,  on  what  principle  do  you  mean  to  constitute  an  Ad- 


CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY.  311 

ministration  composed  of  hon.  Gentlemen  opposite  ?  Is  it  pro 
posed  by  you  to  leave  the  privileges  of  this  House  an  open  ques 
tion  ?  Is  it  intended  that  your  proposed  (government  should  con 
sist  of  those  amongst  you  who  declare  themselves  favourable  to  our 
privileges  ?  Will  it  be  said,  that  the  question  of  privilege  is  of  less 
importance  than  the  question  of  the  ballot  ?  It  is  from  the  ques 
tion  of  privilege  that  the  question  of  the  ballot,  and  all  similar 
questions,  derive  their  importance.  And  of  what  consequence  is 
the  mode  in  which  you  are  elected,  if,  when  you  meet,  you  do  not 
possess  the  privileges  necessary  for  your  efficiency  as  a  branch  of 
the  Legislature  1  Is  anything  more  clear  than  that,  if  an  address 
(which  is  likely)  were  presented  to  the  Crown  on  the  subject  of  our 
privileges,  you  could  never  agree  as  to  the  answer  to  be  given  to 
it  ?  Why,  can  any  question  be  more  important  than  that  which 
should  determine  in  what  relation  we  stand  to  our  constituents  in 
the  Courts  of  Judicature,  and  to  the  other  branches  of  the  Legisla 
ture  ?  And,  on  the  other  hand,  what  is  more  monstrous  (if  we 
take  the  view  of  those  opposed  to  our  privileges)  than  that  we 
should  assert  our  privileges  by  attacking  the  liberty  of  the  subject, 
by  infringing  on  the  functions  of  the  courts  where  her  Majesty  dis 
penses  the  law,  and  committing  to  prison  persons  guilty  only  of  the 
crime  of  appealing  to  the  laws  of  their  country  ?  Can  y  ou  con 
ceive  anything  more  absurd  than  the  Prime  Minister,  over  night, 
sending  men  to  prison,  to  whom  his  law  officers  and  supporters  pay 
complimentary  visits  in  the  morning  ?  I  seriously  believe  that  the 
differences  of  opinion  on  the  other  side  on  the  question  of  privilege 
would,  if  a  Ministry  were  formed  from  that  quarter,  produce,  prac 
tically,  more  inconvenience  in  a  week,  than  leaving  the  ballot  an 
open  question  is  likely  to  produce  in  ten  years.  The  right  hon. 
Baronet  asks  in  what  does  the  present  Government  differ  from  the 
Chartists  ?  One  Member  of  the  present  Government  has,  it  is  true, 
declared  himself  favourable  to  the  ballot.  I  objected  to  the  use  of 
the  word  pledged  ;  for  I  never  gave  any  constituent  body  a  pled  go. 


312  CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY. 

It  is  alleged  too,  that  because  I  maintained  that  a  101.  house  being 
considered  a  sufficient  proof  of  a  man's  stake  in  the  country  to  fit 
him  to  be  a  voter,  it  was  not  desirable  his  locality  should  decide  upon 
his  right  of  voting — for  this  reason,  I  stand  exactly  in  the  same 
position  as  those  who  would  abolish  all  pecuniary  qualification.  I 
cannot  see,  however,  in  what  way  I  admit,  in  the  least,  the  doc 
trine  of  those  who  would  abolish  all  qualification  whatever,  by 
expressing  a  desire  to  see  the  present  107.  franchise  extended.  In 
my  opinion,  a  pecuniary  qualification  is  indispensably  necessary  to 
the  safety  of  the  empire.  In  my  opinion  the  107.  qualification  has 
never  proved  too  high ;  and  supposing  society  to  continue  in  its 
progress — supposing  education  to  continue,  and  the  distribution  of 
property,  and  the  value  of  money  to  remain  as  they  are,  if  I  can 
foresee  anything  in  my  public  conduct,  I  shall  abide  by  the  opinion 
which  I  have  just  expressed  as  to  the  question  of  the  franchise. 
This  is  my  answer  to  the  right  hon.  Baronet,  and  if  it  does  not 
convey  to  him  a  proof  that  my  opinions  are  different  from  those 
of  the  Chartists  on  this  subject,  his  conception  of  their  doctrines 
differs  very  widely  from  mine.  I  come  to  that  which,  through  the 
whole  debate,  has  formed  the  principal  subject  of  observation ;  for 
it  must  be  clear,  that  it  is  not  on  the  conduct  of  Commissioner  Lin, 
or  of  Captain  Elliot,  or  on  the  hostilities  on  the  river  La  Plata,  or 
on  any  circumstance  of  this  kind,  that  the  result  of  this  debate  must 
turn.  The  main  argument  of  the  hon.  Gentleman  opposite,  used 
by  the  hon.  Baronet  who  opened  the  debate,  repeated  by  his 
seconder,  and  constituting  the  substance  of  every  speech  which  has 
been  delivered,  amounts  to  this  : — "  The  country  is  in  an  unsatis 
factory  state — there  is  great  turbulence — there  is  great  disposition 
to  extensive  political  change — and  at  the  bottom  of  all  lies  the  agi 
tating  policy  of  those  Whigs.  They  raised  themselves  to  power  by 
means  of  agitation — they  strengthened  themselves  in  favour  by 
means  of  agitation — they  carried  the  Reform  Bill  by  means  of  agi 
tation — and  we  are  now  paying  the  fruits  of  their  acts.  All  this 


CONFIDENCE     IX     THE     MINISTRY.  313 

Chartism  is  but  the  effect  of  their  conduct;  and  it  is  evident  that 
from  those  who  have  caused  the  evil  you  cannot  expect  the  remedy. 
We  ought  to  dismiss  them,  and  seek  others  who,  never  having 
excited  the  people  to  turbulence,  will  command  the  confidence  of 
the  country."  I  don't  know  whether  I  have  stated  it  correctly,  but 
this,  as  nearly  as  I  could  collect,  is  the  substance  of  what  has  been 
urged  by  hon.  Gentlemen  opposite.  Now,  I  might  fellow  the 
example  set  by  my  right  hon.  Friend  (the  Judge  Advocate)  in  his 
most  noble  and  eloquent  speech,  and  content  myself  with  stating 
that  this  agitation  belonged  principally  to  the  Government  of  Lord 
Grey.  Of  that  Government,  the  noble  Lord,  the  Member  for  Lan 
cashire,  and  the  right  hon.  Member  for  Pembroke  were  Members. 
I  might  say — "they  were  then  distinguished  Members  of  this 
House.  To  them  I  leave  the  task  of  exculpation — to  them  I  leave 
it  to  defend  agitation — to  them  I  leave  it  to  decide  on  what  prin 
ciple,  and  to  what  extent,  they  shared  in  such  means  of  carrying 
public  questions."  In  spite  of  that  challenge  which  my  right  hon. 
Friend  gave  the  right  hon.  Baronet,  he  gives  no  explanation,  but 
contents  himself  with  the  simple  confession — "  I  liked  the  Reform 
Bill — I  agitated  for  iL  I  was  carried  I  admit  far  beyond  pru 
dence,  and  just  on  the  verge  of  the  law."  Is  it  possible  that  any 
gentleman  possessing  only  a  very  small  part  of  the  foresight  of  the 
right  hon.  Gentleman  should  not  perceive,  that  as  soon  as  this 
defence  is  admitted,  this  consequence  must  of  necessity  follow — 
that  the  only  question  is,  whether  the  measures  to  be  agitated  for 
are  good  in  themselves,  and  not  whether  agitation  itself  be  good  or 
bad.  The  right  hon.  Baronet  admits,  then,  that  agitation  itself  is 
a  proper  and  legitimate  mode  of  carrying  any  measure  that  is  good. 
When  the  right  hon.  Baronet  comes  forward  to  charge  the  present 
Government  with  agitation,  and  directs  his  reproaches  against  no 
member  of  that  Government  more  than  myself,  I  confess  I  feel 
some  inclination  to  remonstrate  with  the  right  hon.  Gentleman  for 
want  of  generosity  :  for  my  interest  in  this  question  is  small  indeed, 
v<5i.  r.  14 


314  CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY. 

compared  with  that  of  the  right  hon.  Gentleman  himself.  I,  Sir,- 
was  not  a  member  of  the  Cabinet  that  brought  in  the  Reform  Bill 
— I  was  not  one  of  those  Ministers  who  told  their  Sovereign  they 
would  serve  him  no  longer  unless  he  would  create  a  sufficient 
number  of  Peers  to  curry  their  measures.  I,  Sir,  at  that  time  was 
merely  one  of  those  hundreds  within  these  walls,  and  of  millions 
throughout  the  country,  \\lio  were  firmly  and  deeply  impressed 
with  the  conviction  that  the  Reform  Bill  was  a  great  and  salutary 
measure— who  reposed  the  greatest  confidence  in  the  abilities,  the 
integrity,  and  the  patriotism  of  the  Ministers;  and  I  must  add,  that 
in  no  Member  of  that  administration  did  I  place  greater  confidence 
for  the  possession  of  those  high  qualities  than  in  the  noble  Lord 
the  Secretary  for  Ireland,  and  in  the  right  hon.  Gentleman  the  First 
Lord  of  the  Admiralty.  In  none  did  I  place  greater  confidence 
that  they  would  take  measures  to  guard  against  the  evils  insepara 
ble  from  all  great  changes,  and  take  heed  that  they  did  not  pro 
duce  consequences  injurious  to  the  community.  Is  it  not  extra 
ordinary  that  we  should  be  reproached  with  what  was,  in  fact, 
confidence  in  the  noble  Lord  and  right  hon.  Gentleman,  by  the 
very  men  who  are  seeking  to  raise  that  noble  Lord  and  right  hon. 
Gentleman  to  power  ?  If  the  provisions  of  the  Reform  Bill  point 
to  Chartism — if  the  doctrines  of  Chartism  are  to  be  traced  to  the 
spirit  of  that  enactment,  then,  Sir,  I  am  bound  to  say  that  none 
more  than  the  noble  Lord  and  the  right  hon.  Gentleman  are 
answerable  for  it.  If  men  are  to  be  deemed  disqualified  for  places 
in  the  councils  of  their  Sovereign,  because  they  exerted  themselves 
lo  carry  that  bill,  because  they  appealed  to  the  people  to  support 
that  bill,  because  they  employed  means,  certainly  lying  within  the 
verge  of  the  law,  but  certainly  also,  as  has  been  observed,  just 
within  the  confines  of  prudence,  then,  Sir,  I  do  say  that  no  men  in 
this  empire  lie  under  a  disqualification  for  office  more  complete, 
more  entire,  than  the  noble  Lord  and  the  right  hon.  Baronet.  Sir, 
I  leave  to  them  the  task  of  defending  themselves;  well  are  they 


CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY.  315 

qualified  by  their  talents  to  do  so ;  but  if  the  noble  Lord  does  not 
answer,  then  it  will  remain  for  the  right  hon.  Baronet,  who  twice 
offered  both  of  them  places  in  his  Cabinet,  to  do  so.  If  the  noble 
Lord  and  the  right  hon.  Baronet  (or,  as  I  trust  he  will  permit  me, 
in  spite  of  some  few  asperities  this  evening,  to  call  him  my  right 
hon.  Friend)  will  forgive  me,  I  would  offer  some  considerations  in 
extenuation  of  their  conduct.  I  would  say,  "You  condemn  agita 
tion.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  abuses  shall  never  be  removed  ? 
If  they  are  to  be  removed,  then  I  ask,  is  it  possible  that  any  great 
abuse  can,  in  a  country  like  this,  be  removed  till  the  public  feeling 
is  against  it,  or  that  the  public  feeling  can  be  raised  and  kept  up 
without  arguments,  without  exertions,  both  by  speech  and  writing, 
the  holding  of  public  meetings,  and  other  means  of  a  like  nature  ?" 
Sir,  I  altogether  deny  that  assertion  or  insinuation,  which  IJieard 
over  and  over  again,  both  yesterday  and  this  night,  in  this  House, 
that  a  Government  which  countenances,  or  does  not  discountenance, 
agitation  will  not  punish  rebellion.  There  may  be  a  sirnilftrity  hi 
the  simple  act  between  the  man  who  bleeds  and  the  man  who 
stabs  ;  but  is  there  no  difference  in  the  nature  of  the  action — in  its 
intent  and  in  its  effects  ?  I  do  not  believe  there  has  been  one 
instance  of  justifiable  insurrection  in  this  country  for  a  century  and 
a-half.  On  the  other  hand,  I  hold  agitation  to  be  essential,  not 
only  to  the  obtaining  of  good  and  just  measures,  but  to  the  exist 
ence  of  a  free  Government  itself.  If  you  choose  to  adopt  the  prin 
ciple  of  Bishop  Horsley,  that  the  people  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  laws  but  to  obey  them,  then,  indeed,  you  may  deprecate  agita 
tion  ;  but,  while  we  live  in  a  free  country,  and  under  a  free  Govern 
ment,  your  deprecation  is  vain  and  untenable.  If  a  man  lives  in 
Russia  and  can  obtain  an  audience  of  the  Emperor  Nicholas  or  of 
Count  Nesselrode,  and  can  produce  proof  that  certain  views  he 
entertains  are  sound,  certain  plans  he  proposes  would  be  attended 
with  practical  benefit,  then,  indeed,  without  agitation,  without  pub 
lic  discussion,  with  a  single  stroke  of  the  pen,  a  great  and  important 


316  CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY. 

change  is  at  once  effected.  Not  so,  Sir,  in  this  country.  Here  the 
people  must  be  appealed  to — the  public  voice  must  be  consulted. 
In  saying  this  have  I  defended  one  party  alone — have  I  not 
defended  alike  both  the  great  parties  in  this  House  ?  Have  we  not 
heard  of  agitation  against  the  Catholic  claims  ?  Has  there  been 
no  agitation  against  the  Poor-law  ?  Has  there  been  no  agitation 
against  Education  ?  Has  there  been  no  agitation  against  the 
Catholic  Privy  Councillors  ?  But  to  pass,  Sir,  from  questions  about 
which  there  may  fairly  exist  a  difference  of  opinion,  to  measures 
upon  which  we  must  all  agree — to  pass  to  a  measure  of  the  proud 
est,  grandest  nature  that  ever  received  the  sanction  of  a  legisla 
ture  ;  I  say  that  the  Slave-trade  would  never  have  been  abolished 
without  agitation.  I  say  that  slavery  would  never  have  been 
abolished  without  agitation.  Would  your  prison  discipline,  or  the 
severities  of  your  penal  code,  have  been  ameliorated  without  agita 
tion  ?  I  am  far,  very  far,  Sir,  from  denying  that  agitation  may  be 
much  abused — that  it  may  be  carried  to  a  most  unjustifiable 
length.  But,  Sir,  so  also  may  freedom  of  speech  in  this  House,  so 
also  may  the  liberty  of  the  press.  What  is  agitation  when  it  is 
examined,  but  the  mode  in  which  the  people  in  the  great  outer 
assembly  debate  ?  Is  it  not  as  necessary  that  they  should  have 
their  discussion  without  the  walls  of  this  House,  as  we  who  sit 
within  them  ?  There  may,  indeed,  be  occasional  asperities  in  popu 
lar  meetings,  as  experience  has  shown  that  there  frequently  are  in 
debates  in  this  House,  but  that  is  no  reason  why  freedom  of  debate 
should  be  abridged  in  either.  I  know  well  that  agitation  is  fre 
quently  used  to  excite  the  people  to  resist  the  law,  but  that  that  is 
a  proper  subject  for  animadversion  upon  the  Magistrates,  I  deny — 
that  the  agitation  of  the  present  time  is  evidence  of  the  agitation 
of  the  Government  of  Lord  Grey,  I  deny.  It  is  perfectly  true  that 
what  is  said  in  this  House,  or  any  other  public  assembly,  though 
it  may  be  moderate,  reasonable,  and  may  point  only  to  the  legal 
remedy  for  an  abuse,  may  yet  be  taken  up  by  the  disingenuous 


CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY.  317 

man,  and  be  so  twisted,  distorted,  and  perverted,  that  it  may  excite 
the  populace  to  acts  of  crime.  I  have  heard  within  the  walls  of 
this  House,  the  right  hon.  Gentleman  opposite — not,  I  am  sure, 
with  any  improper  motive — apply  to  secret  meetings  of  men  for 
lawless  purposes,  expressions  which  the  noble  Lord  used  only  with 
respect  to  public  and  open  meetings.  The  right  hon.  Gentleman 
ought  to  remember,  that  his  own  words  have  been  applied  by  bad 
men  for  the  delusion  of  the  multitude.  One  of  the  speeches  which 
has  been  used  by  the  Chartists  as  a  handle  for  their  excesses,  was  a 
speech  of  the  right  lion.  Baronet.  Do  I  blame  him  for  that?  No. 
He  said  nothing  which  was  not  within  the  just  line  of  his  duty  as  a 
Member  of  this  House.  I  allude  to  a  speech  which  the  right  hon. 
Baronet  made  upon  the  subject  of  the  emoluments  divided  among 
the  Privy  Councillors.  I  fully  acquit  the  right  hon.  Gentleman  of 
saying  anything  that  was  not  in  strict  conformity  with  his  duty, 
but  it  is  impossible  for  any  man  so  to  guard  his  expressions  that 
bad  men  shall  not  misconstrue,  and  ignorant  men  misunderstand 
them.  I  therefore  throw  no  censure  upon  the  right  hon.  Baronet, 
but  I  do  say,  that  the  very  circumstance  of  his  own  speech  having 
been  perverted  should  make  him  pause,  before  bringing  charges 
against  men  not  less  attached  than  himself  to  the  peace  and  well- 
being  of  society — charges  having  no  better  foundation  than  bad 
reports  of  their  speeches,  and  his  own  misapprehension  of  them. 
Now,  Sir,  to  pass  by  many  topics  which,  but  for  the  lateness  of  the 
hour  I  would  willingly  advert  to,  I  come  to  that  which  is  really 
the  point.  This  is  not  less  a  comparative  than  a  positive  question. 
The  meaning  of  the  vote  is  not,  clearly,  whether  this  House  ap 
proves  in  all  respects  of  the  conduct  of  the  Government — it  is 
whether  this  House  conceives  that  a  better  one  can  at  present  be 
formed.  All  government  is  imperfect,  but  some  government  there 
must  be;  and  if  the  present  Government  were  far  worse  than  any 
hon.  Gentleman  on  the  o.ther  side  would  represent  it  to  be,  still  it 
would  be  every  man's  duty  to  support  it  if  he  did  not  see  that  a 


318  CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY. 

better  one  would  supply  its  place.  Now,  Sir,  I  take  it  to  be  per 
fectly  clear  that  in  the  event  of  the  resignation  of  the  present 
Administration  one  must  be  formed,  the  first  place  of  which  must 
be  filled  by  the  right  lion.  Baronet  opposite.  Towards  that  right 
hon.  Baronet,  arid  towards  many  of  those  Noblemen  and  Gentlemen 
who,  in  such  an  event,  would  be  associated  with  him,  I  entertain 
nothing  but  kindly  and  respectful  feelings.  I  am  far — very  far  I 
hope — from  that  narrowness  of  mind  which  can  see  merit  in  no 
party  but  his  own.  If  I  may  venture  to  parody  the  old  Venetian 
proverb,  I  would  say,  "  Be  first  an  Englishman,  and  then  a  Whig." 
Sir,  I  feel  proud  for  my  country  when  I  think  how  much  of  inte 
grity — how  many  virtues  and  talents  which  would  adorn  any  sta 
tion,  are  to  be  found  among  the  ranks  of  my  political  opponents. 
Among  them,  conspicuous  for  his  high  character  and  ability,  stands 
the  right  hon.  Baronet.  When  I  have  said  this,  I  have  said  enough 
to  prove  that  nothing  is  further  from  me  than  to  treat  him  with  the 
smallest  discourtesy  in  the  remarks  which,  in  the  discharge  of  my 
public  duty,  I  shall  feel  it  necessary  to  make  upon  his  policy  and 
that  of  his  party.  But,  Sir,  it  has  been  his  misfortune,  it  has  been 
his  fate,  to  belong  to  a  party  with  whom  he  has  had  less  sympathy 
than  any  head  ever  had  with  any  party.  I  speak  of  that  which  is 
a  matter  of  history.  I  speak  now  of  times  long  ago.  He  declared 
himself  decidedly  in  favour  of  those  principles  of  free  trade  which 
made  Mr.  Huskisson  odious  to  a  great  portion  of  the  com 
munity.  The  right  hon.  Baronet  gave  every  facility  for  the  remo 
val  of  the  disabilities  of  Protestant  Dissenters.  The  right  hon. 
Baronet  brought  in  a  Bill  for  the  relief  of  Catholic  disabilities  ;  yet 
what  we  are  charged  with  is  bringing  that  enactment  into  practical 
operation.  The  right  hon.  Baronet  declared  himself  in  favour  of 
the  Poor-law  ;  yet  if  a  voice  is  raised  against  the  "  Whig  bastiles," 
or  "  the  tyrants  of  Somerset  House,"  that  cry  is  sure  to  proceed 
from  some  person  who  wishes  to  vote  the  right  hon.  Baronet  into 
power.  Even  upon  this  great  question  of  privilege,  upon  which 


CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY.  319 

the  right  lion.  Baronet  has  taken  a  part  which  ought  to  render  his 
name  to  the  end  of  time  honourable  in  the  opinion  of  this  House, 
and  of  all  who  value  its  privileges,  I  cannot  but  conceive  that  the 
right  lion.  Gentleman  is  at  variance  with  the  great  body  of  his  sup 
porters.  Sir,  I  have  also  observed  that  where  the  right  hon. 
Baronet  does  agree  with  the  great  body  of  his  supporters  in  con 
clusions,  he  seldom  arrives  at  thosa  conclusions  by  the  same  pn> 
cess  of  reasoning  by  which  their  minds  are  led.  Many  great  ques 
tions  which  they  consider  as  of  stern  and  unbendin-g  morality,  and 
of  strict  principle,  have  been  viewed  by  him  as  mere  points  of 
expediency,  of  place,  and  of  time.  I  have  not  heard  one  allegation 
against  the  Government  of  Lord  Melbourne  which  wrould  not  enable 
a  Government  formed  by  the  right  hon.  Baronet  to  bring  in,  with 
some  little  variation,  the  same  measures.  I  listened  to  the  right 
hon.  Baronet — I  always  listen  to  him  with  pleasure — upon  the  sub 
ject  of  education,  and  I  could  not  but  be  amused  at  the  skill  with 
which  he  endeavoured  to  give  the  reasons  of  a  statesman  for  the 
course  of  a  bigot ;  and  my  conclusion,  as  I  listened,  was  that  he 
thought  as  I  did  with  respect  to  the  Douay  version  and  the  Normal 
schools.  Sir,  I  ani  irresistibly  brought  to  this  conclusion,  that  in  a 
conjuncture  like  the  present,  the  right  hon.  Baronet  can  conduct 
the  administration  of  affairs  with  neither  honour  to  himself,  nor 
with  satisfaction  to  that  party  who  seek  to  force  him  into  office. 
I  will  not  affect  to  feel  apprehensions  from  which  I  am  entirely 
free.  I  will  not  say  that  I  think  the  right  hon.  Baronet  will  act 
the  part  of  a  tyrant.  I  do  not  think  he  will  give  up  this  country 
to  the  tender  mercies  of  the  bigoted  part — and  which  form  so  large 
a  part — of  his  followers.  I  do  not  believe  he  would  strike  out  the 
names  of  all  Catholics  from  office  and  from  the  Privy  Council. 
Nor,  Sir,  do  I  believe  that  the  right  hon.  Baronet  will  come  down 
to  the  House  with  a  Bill  for  a  repeal  of  his  own  great  measure. 
But,  Sir,  what  I  think  he  will  attempt  to  do  is  this — he  will  attempt 
to  keep  terms  with  that  party  which  raises  him  to  power  by  a  course 


320  CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY. 

which  would  soon  excite  the  gravest  discontents  in  att  parts  of  the 
empire.  And  at  the  same  time  I  think,  Sir,  that  he  will  not 
carry  the  course  of  his  administration  far  enough  to  keep  their 
steady  support.  The  result  I  think,  will  be  this — that  the  right 
hon.  Baronet  will  lose  the  support  of  a  great  portion  of  his  own 
party,  and,  at  the  same  time,  he  will  not  gain  the  support  of  the 
other,  till  at  last  his  Government  will  fail  from  causes  purely 
internal.  Sir,  we  have  not  to  act  in  this  merely  upon  conjecture. 
We  have  beheld  the  same  piece  performed  on  the  same  scene,  and 
by  the  same  actors,  at  no  distant  period.  In  1827,  the  right  hon. 
Baronet  was,  as  now,  at  the  head  of  a  powerful  opposition.  He 
had  a  strong  minority  in  this  House,  and  a  majority  in  the  House 
'of  Lords ;  he  was  the  idol  of  the  Church  and  of  the  Universities ; 
and  all  those  who  dreaded  change — all  those  who  were  hostile  to 
the  principles  of  liberty  and  the  rights  of  conscience,  considered 
him  their  leader ;  he  was  opposed  to  those  Members  who  were 
sometimes  called  Papists,  and  sometimes  idolaters ;  he  was  opposed 
to  a  Government  which  was  said  to  have  obtained  power  by  per 
sonal  intrigue  and  Court  favour.  At  last  the  right  hon.  Baronet 
rises  to  the  principal  place  in  this  House.  Free  from  those  diffi 
culties  which  had  embarrassed  him,  he  was  in  opposition  when  Tory 
bigotry  had  found  for  the  greatest  orator,  and  the  most  accom 
plished  of  Tory  statesmen  in  the  nineteenth  century,  a  resting-place 
in  Westminster  Abbey,  and  the  right  hon.  Baronet  appeared  at  the 
head  of  Government  upon  this  bench,  and  those  who  had  raised 
him  to  power  with  the  loudest  acclamations,  and  deemed  that 
their  expectations  must  necessarily  be  accomplished.  Is  it  neces 
sary  to  say  in  what  disappointment — in  what  sorrow — in  what  fury 
all  those  expectations  ended  ?  The  right  hon.  Baronet  had  been 
raised  to  power  by  prejudices  and  by  passions  in  which  he  had  no 
share.  His  followers  were  bigots ;  he  was  a  statesman.  He  was 
calmly  balancing  conveniences  and  inconveniences,  whilst  they  were 
ready  to  prefer  confiscation,  proscription,  civil  war,  to  the  smallest 


CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY.  321 

concession  to  public  feeling.  The  right  hon.  Baronet  attempted  to 
stand  well  with  his  party,  and  at  the  same  time  to  perform  some 
part  of  his  duty  to  his  country.  Vain  effort !  His  elevation,  as  it 
had  excited  the  hopes  and  expectations  of  his  own  party,  awakened 
gloomy  apprehensions  in  other  quarters.  Agitation  in  Ireland, 
.which  for  a  time  had  slumbered,  awakened  with  renewed  vigour, 
and  became  more  formidable  than  ever.  The  Roman  Catholic 
Association  rose  to  a  height  of  power  such  as  the  Irish  Parliament 
in  the  days  of  its  independence  never  possessed.  Violence  engen 
dered  violence ;  scenes  such  as  the  country  for  long  years  had  not 
witnessed,  announced  that  the  time  of  evasion  and  delay  was 
passed.  A  crisis  was  arrived,  in  which  it  was  absolutely  necessary 
for  the  Government  of  the  day  to  take  one  part  or  the  other.  A 
plain  and  simple  issue  was  proposed  to  the  right  hon.  Baronet — 
either  to  disgust  his  party  or  ruin  his  country.  He  chose  the  good 
path  ;  he  performed  a  painful,  in  some  sense  a  humiliating,  but  in 
point  of  fact  a  most  truly  honourable  part.  He  came  down  him 
self  to  propose  to  this  House  the  great  measure  of  Roman  Catholic 
Emancipation.  Amongst  the  followers  of  the  right  hon.  Baronet, 
there  were  some  who,  like  himself,  had  considered  opposition  to 
the  Catholic  claims  purely  as  a  matter  of  expediency.  These  rea 
dily  changed  about,  and  consented  to  support  his  altered  policy. 
But  not  so  the  great  body  of  those  who  had  previously  followed 
the  right  hon.  Baronet.  With  them,  opposition  to  the  Roman 
Catholics  was  a  passion,  which  a  mistaken  sense  of  duty  bound 
them  to  cherish.  They  had  been  deceived,  and  it  would  have  been 
more  agreeable  to  them  to  think,  that  they  had  been  deceived  by 
others  than  by  one  of  their  own  sect — one  whom  they  themselves 
had  been  the  means  of  raising  to  a  permanent  place  in  the  Admi 
nistration  of  the  country.  How  profound  was  their  indignation ! 
With  what  an  explosion  did  their  rage  break  forth  !  None  who 
saw  that  time  can  ever  forget  the  frantic  fury  with  which  the 

former  associates  of  the  right  hon.  Baronet  assailed  their  quondam 

14* 


322  CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY. 

chief.  Never  was  such  a  torrent  of  invective  and  calumny  directed 
against  one  single  head.  All  history  and  all  fiction  were  ran 
sacked  by  his  own  followers  to  furnish  terms  of  abuse  and  obloquy. 
The  right  hon.  Gentleman,  whom  I  am  sorry  not  now  to  see  in  his 
place  on  the  bench  opposite,  unable  to  express  his  feelings  in  the 
language  of  English  prose,  pursued  his  late  chief  with  reproaches 
borrowed  from  the  ravings  of  the  deserted  Dido.  Another,  wrest 
ing  to  his  use  the  page  of  holy  writ,  likened  him  to  Judas  Iscariot. 
The  great  university,  which  heretofore  had  been  proud  to  confer 
upon  him  the  highest  marks  of  its  favour,  was  now  foremost  to  fix 
upon  him  the  brand  of  disgrace  and  infamy.  Men  came  up  in 
crowds  from  Oxford  to  vote  against  him,  whose  presence  a  few  days 
before  would  have  set  the  bells  of  all  their  churches  jingling.  The 
whole  hatred  of  the  high  Church  party  towards  those  to  whom 
they  had  previously  been  opposed,  was  sunk  and  absorbed  in  this 
new  aversion  ;  and  thence  it  happened  that  the  Ministry,  which  in 
the  beginning  of  1828  was  one  of  the  strongest  that  the  country 
ever  saw,  was  at  the  end  of  1829  one  of  the  weakest  that  a  politi 
cal  opponent  could  desire  to  combat.  It  lingered  on  another  year, 
struggling  between  two  parties,  leaning  now  on  the  Whigs,  now 
on  the  Tories — reeling  sometimes  beneath  a  blow  from  the  right, 
sometimes  from  a  blow  on  the  left — certain  to  fall  as  soon  as  the 
two  parties  should  unite  in  their  efforts  to  defeat  it.  At  last  it  fell, 
attacked  by  the  whole  body  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  Tory  gentry 
in  England.  Now,  what  I  wish  to  know  is  this :  What  reason 
have  we  to  believe,  that  from  an  Administration  now  formed  by 
the  right  hon.  Baronet  we  could  anticipate  any  different  result. 
The  right  hon.  Baronet  is  still  the  same — he  is  still  a  statesman  ? 
Yes — still  a  statesman,  high  in  intellect,  moderate  in  opinions,  calm 
in  temper,  free  from  the  fanaticism  which  is  found  in  so  large  a 
measure  among  his  followers.  I  will  not  say,  that  the  party  which 
follows  him  is  still  the  same,  for  in  my  opinion  it  has  undergone  a 
change,  and  that  change  is  this — it  has  become  fiercer  and  more 


CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY.  323 

intolerant  even  than  in  clays  gone  by.  I  judge  by  the  language 
arid  doctrines  of  its  press  ;  I  judge  by  the  proceedings  of  its  public 
meetings ;  I  judge  by  its  pulpits — pulpits  which  are  every  week 
teeming  with  invective  and  slander  that  would  disgrace  the  hust 
ings.  A  change  has  of  late  come  over  the  spirit  of  a  part,  I  hope 
not  the  most  considerable  part,  of  the  Tory  party.  It  was  once 
the  boast  of  that  party,  that  through  all  changes  of  fortune  they 
cherished  feelings  of  loyalty,  which  rendered  their  very  errors 
respected,  and  gave  to  servitude  something  of  the  dignity  and 
worthiness  of  freedom.  A  great  Tory  poet,  who,  in  his  lifetime, 
was  largely  requited  for  his  loyalty,  said — 

"  Our  loyalty  is  still  the  same, 
Whether  it  win  or  lose  the  game, 
True  as  the  dial  to  the  sun, 
Although  it  be  not  shone  upon." 

We  see  now  a  very  different  race  of  Tories.  We  have  lived  to 
see  a  new  party  rear  its  head — a  monster  of  a  party,  made  up  of 
the  worst  points  of  the  Cavalier  and  the  worst  points  of  the  Round 
head.  We  have  lived  to  see  a  race  of  disloyal  tories.  We  have 
lived  to  see  Toryism  giving  itself  the  airs  of  those  insolent  pipemen 
who  puffed  out  smoke  in  the  face  of  Charles  the  First.  We  have 
lived  to  see  Toryism,  which,  because  it  is  not  suffered  to  grind  the 
people  after  the  fashion  of  Strafford,  turns  round  and  abuses  the 
Sovereign  after  the  fashion  of — (the  remainder  of  the  sentence  was 
lost  in  the  cheers  of  the  House.)  It  is  my  firm  belief  that  the 
party  by  which  the  present  motion  is  supported  throughout  the 
country  desire  the  repeal  of  the  Catholic  Emancipation  Act.  For 
what  I  say,  I  will  give  my  reasons,  which  I  think  are  unanswera 
ble.  In  what  other  way,  am  I  to  explain  the  outcry  which  has 
been  raised  throughout  the  whole  of  the  country  about  the  three 
Papist  Privy  Councillors  ?  Is  the  Catholic  Emancipation  Act  to 
be  maintained  ?  If  it  is  to  be  maintained,  execute  it.  Is  it  to  be 


324  CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY. 

abandoned  ?     If  so,  openly  and  candidly  avow  it.     If  it  is  not  to 
be  executed,  can  anything  be  more  absurd  than  to  retain  it  upon 
the  statute  book  ?     The  Tory  party  resent  as  a  monstrous  calumny 
the  imputation  that  they  wish  to  get  rid  of  the  Emancipation  Act ; 
but  the  moment  that  an  attempt  is  made  to  execute  it,  even  to  a 
small  extent,  they  set  up  a  cry  as  if  Church  and  State  were  going 
to  ruin.     For  the  repeal  of  the  Emancipation  Act,  I  can  see  a 
reason — in  the  desire  to  repeal  it,  I  see  a  meaning — a  baneful 
meaning — a  pernicious  meaning,  but  still  a  meaning ;  but  I  cannot 
see  a  particle  of  reason  nor  a  glimpse  of  meaning,  in  the  conduct  of 
those  who  say,  "  We  will  retain  the  Emancipation  Act ;  those  who 
say  we  desire  to  repeal  it  are  calumniators  and  slanderers ;  we  are 
as  sensible  of  the  importance  of  that  Act  as  any  party  in  the  coun 
try,"  but  who,  the  moment  that  an  attempt  is  made  to  execute  one 
jot  or  tittle  of  it,  exclaim,  "  No,  if  you  attempt  to  put  the  Act  in 
force,  we  will  agitate  against  you,  for  we,  too,  have  our  agitation; 
we  will  denounce  you  in  our  associations,  for  we,  too,  have  our 
associations  ;  our  oracles  shall  be  sent  forth  to  talk  of  civil  war,  of 
rebellion,  of  resistance  to  the  laws,  and  to  give  hints  about  the  fate 
of  James  2nd — to  give  hints  that  a  Sovereign  who  has  merely  exe 
cuted  the  law  may  be  treated  like  a  Sovereign  who  has  most  grossly 
violated  the  law."     I  could  understand  a  person  who  told  me,  that 
he  had  a  strong  objection  to  admit  Roman   Catholics  to  power 
or   office  in    England ;    but    how    any   man    who    professes   not 
to  think,  that  an  invidious  distinction  should  be  made  between 
Catholic  and  Protestant,  can  bring  himself  to  the  persuasion  that 
the  Roman  Catholics  in  this  country  enjoy  more  than  a  fair  share 
of  official  power  and  emolument,  I  own  passes  my  comprehension. 
"What  is  the  proportion  of  Roman  Catholics  to  the  whole  popula 
tion  of  the  kingdom  ?     About  one  fourth.     What  is  the  proportion 
of  Roman  Catholic  Privy  Councillors  ?     Perhaps  three  to  two  hun 
dred.     And  what,  after  all,  is  the  dignity  of  a  Privy  Councillor  ? 
— what  power  does  the  ieat  of  a  Privy  Councillor,  merely  as  such, 


CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY.  82-5 

confer  ?  Are  not  the  hon.  Gentlemen  opposite  Privy  Councillors  ? 
If  a  change  of  administration  were  effected  to-morrow,  and  the 
right  hon.  Gentlemen  opposite  were  to  come  into  office,  would  not 
those  whom  they  displaced,  be  still  Privy  Councillors  ?  In  point 
of  fact,  the  seat  of  a  Privy  Councillor  absolutely  confers  no  power 
whatever.  Yet,  we  are  seriously  called  upon  to  believe,  that  men, 
who  think  it  monstrous  that  this  mere  futile  honorary  distinction 
should  be  given  to  three  Roman  Catholics,  do  still  in  their  hearts 
desire  to  maintain  a  law  by  which  a  Roman  Catholic  may  become 
Commander-in-chief,  with  all  the  promotion  of  the  army  in  his 
hands  ;  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty,  with  all  the  patronage  of  the 
navy — Secretary  of  State  for  the  Foreign  Department,  entrusted 
with  all  the  interests  of  the  country,  as  connected  with  foreign 
states — Secretary  for  the  Colonies,  with  the  whole  conduct  of  our 
remoter  dependencies — or  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury,  possessing 
the  chief  influence  in  every  department  of  the  state.  I  say,  there 
fore,  that  unless  I  suppose,  that  a  great  portion  of  the  Opposition 
who  have  raised  throughout  England,  the  cry  against  the  three 
Roman  Catholic  Privy  Councillors — unless  I  suppose  them  more 
childish,  more  imbecile  than  I  would  willingly  suppose  any  number 
of  my  fellow-countrymen  to  be,  I  must  suspect  that  the  abolition 
of  the  Catholic  Emancipation  Act,  is  the  chief  object  of  a  great 
pro-portion  of  that  party  which  now  ranges  itself  in  direct  hostility 
to  the  Government.  The  right  hon.  Baronet  (Sir  R.  Peel)  is,  in 
my  opinion,  the  same  that  he  was  in  1829;  but  his  party,  instead 
of  being  the  same,  is  worse  than  it  was  at  that  period.  The  diffi 
culty  of  governing  Ireland,  in  opposition  to  the  feelings  of  the  great 
body  of  the  people,  is,  I  apprehend,  now  as  great  as  ever  it  was. 
The  right  hon.  Baronet,  last  year,  was  deeply  impressed  with  that 
difficulty.  The  impossibility  of  governing  Ireland  in  conformity 
with  the  sense  of  the  great  body  of  the  people,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  in  conformity  with  the  views  and  opinions  of  his  own  follow 
ers,  is  now,  I  apprehend,  as  great  as  ever.  What,  then,  is  to  be 


326  CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY. 

the  end  of  an   Administration  of   whicli  the  right  hon.  Baronet 
should  be  head  ?     Supposing  the  right  hon.  Baronet  to  come  into 
office  by  the  vote  to-night,  should  I  be  wrong  if  I  were  to  prophesy 
that,  three  years  hence,  he  would  be  more  vilified  by   the  Tory 
party,  than  the  present  Government  has  ever  been  ?     Should  I  be 
very  wrong,  if  I  were  to  prophesy,  that  all  the  literary  organs  of 
his  party  now  forward  to  sound  his  praise,  would  be  amongst  the 
foremost,  the  boldest,  and  the  loudest  to  denounce  him  ?     Should 
T  be  very  wrong  if  I  were  to  prophesy  that  he  would  be  burnt  in 
effigy  by  the  very  people  who  are  now  clamorous  to  toast  his 
health  ?     Should  I  be  very  wrong  if  I  were  to  prophesy  that  the 
very  party  who  now  crowd  the  House  to  vote  him  into  power, 
would  then  crowd  the  lobby  to  bring  Lord  Melbourne  back  ?     Yes, 
already  have  I  seen  the  representatives  of  the  Church,  and  of  the 
Universities  of  England,  crowding  the  lobby  of  the  House,  for  the 
purpose  of  driving  the  right  hon.  Baronet  from  the  place  to  which 
they  had  previously  raised  him.     I  went  out  with  them  myself, 
when  the  whole  body  of  the  Tory  Gentlemen — all  the  Represent 
atives  of  the  Church  and  of  the  Universities — united  to  force  the 
right  hon.  Baronet  from  the  position  which  he  occupied  in  the 
councils  of  his  Sovereign,     I  went  out  into  the  lobby,  as  the  right 
hon.  Baronet,  the  Member  for  Pembroke  (Sir  James  Graham),  will 
bear  me  witness,  when  those  Gentlemen  went  out  for  the  purpose 
of  bringing  into  power  Lord  Grey,  Lord  Al thorp,  Lord  Brougham, 
and  Lord  Durham.     You  may  say,  that  they  reasoned  ill  — perhaps 
they  were  weak — perhaps  they  did  not  see  all  that  would  happen. 
But  so  it  was  ;  and  what  has  been  once  may  be  again.     As  far  as 
I  can  see  my  way,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose,  that  the  party  of  whicli 
the  right  hon.  Baronet  is  the  head,  would  be  content  with  less  from 
him  than  they  would  take  from  Lord  Melbourne.     I  believe  just 
the  contrary.     I  believe,  that  of  all  men  in  the  world,  the  right 
hon.  Baronet  is  most  the  object  of  distrust  to  the  party  opposite. 
They  suffer  him  to  remain  at  their  head,  because  his  great  abili- 


CONFIDENCE     JN     THE     MINISTRY.  327 

ties,  his  eloquence,  his  influence  arc  necessary  to  them ;  but.  they 
distrust  him,  because  they  never  can  forget  that  in  the  greatest 
crisis  of  his  public  life,  he  chose  rather  to  be  the  victim  of  their 
injustice  than  to  be  its  instrument.  It  is  absurd  to  say,  that  that 
party  will  never  be  propitiated  by  any  partition  amongst  their 
chiefs  of  the  power  or  fruits  of  office.  They  can  truly  adopt  the 
maxim,  "  measures  not  men."  They  care  not  who  has  the  sword 
of  state  borne  before  him  at  Dublin — they  list  not  who  wears  the 
badge  of  Saint  Patrick  on  his  breast — what  they  dislike,  what  they 
are  invincibly  opposed  to,  are  the  two  great  principles  which  had 
governed  the  administrations  of  Lord  Normanby  and  Lord  Eb ring- 
ton — justice  and  mercy.  What  they  want  is  not  Lord  Iladding- 
ton,  or  any  other  nobleman  of  their  own  party  whom  the  right  lion. 
Baronet  (Sir  Robert  Peel)  might  appoint  to  the  Yiceroyalty  of  Ire 
land  ;  but  the  tyranny  of  race  over  race,  and  creed  over  creed. 
Give  them  this  power,  and  you  convulse  the  empire  ;  withhold  it, . 
and  you  break  up  the  Tory  party.  Supposing  the  vote  of  to-night 
to  be  carried  in  the  affirmative,  the  right  lion.  Baronet  (Sir  R.  Peel) 
would  not  be  a  month  in  office  before  the  dilemma  of  1829  would 
be  again  before  him.  With  every  respect  for  his  intentions,  with 
the  highest  opinion  of  his  ability,  I  believe  that  at  this  moment  it 
would  be  utterly  impossible  for  him  to  head  the  Administration  of 
this,  country  without  producing  the  most  dreadful  calamities  to  Ire 
land.  Of  this  I  believe  he  was  himself  sensible  when  he  was  last 
year  called  upon  to  form  an  Administration.  The  state  of  the 
empire  was  not  at  that  time  very  cheering.  The  Chartists  were 
abroad  in  England — the  aspect  of  Canadian  affairs  \vas  not  pleas 
ing — an  expedition  was  pending  in  the  East  which  had  not  then 
ended  in  success — discontent  prevailed  in  the  West  Indies.  Yet,  in 
the  midst  of  all  these  troubles,  the  discerning  eye  of  the  right  hon. 
Baronet  left  him  in  no  doubt  as  to  the  quarter  in  which  his  real  dan 
ger  lay — he  knew  'twas  Ireland.  The  right  hon.  Baronet  admitted 
that  his  great  difficulty  would  be  in  the  government  of  Ireland.  I 


828  CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY. 

believe  that  the  present  ministry  possessed  the  confidence  of  the 
great  body  of  the  people  of  Ireland  ;  and  I  believe  that  what  it  does 
for  the  people  of  Ireland,  it  can  do  with  less  irritation  from  the  oppo 
site  party  in  England,  than  the  right  hon.  Baronet  would  find  it 
possible  to  do.  I  believe  that  if,  with  the  best  and  purest  inten 
tions,  the  right  hon.  Baronet  were  to  undertake  the  Government 
of  this  country,  he  would  find  that  it  was  very  easy  indeed  to  lose 
the  confidence  of  the  party  which  raised  him  to  power  ;  but  very 
difficult  indeed  to  gain  that  which  the  present  Government  happily 
possessed — the  confidence  of  the  people  of  Ireland.  It  is  upon 
these  grounds,  and  principally  upon  the  question  of  Ireland,  that  I 
should  be  inclined  to  rest  the  case  of  the  present  Ministry.  I  know 
well,  how  little  chance  there  is  of  finding  here  or  anywhere  an 
unprejudiced  audience  upon  this  subject.  Would  to  God  that  I 
were  speaking  to  an  audience  that  would  judge  this  great  contro 
versy  fairly  and  with  an  unbiassed  mind,  and  as  it  will  be  judged 
by  future  ages.  The  passions  which  inflame  us — the  sophistries 
which  delude  us,  will  not  last  for  ever.  The  paroxysms  of  faction 
have  their  appointed  season,  even  the  madness  of  fanaticism  is  but 
for  a  day.  The  time  is  coming  when  our  conflicts  will  be  to  others 
as  the  conflicts  of  our  forefathers  are  to  us  ;  when  our  priests  who 
convulse  the  State — our  politicians  who  make  a  stalking-horse  of 
the  Church,  will  be  no  more  than  the  Harleys  and  Sacheverells  of 
a  by-gone  day ;  and  when  will  be  told,  in  a  language  very  different 
from  that  which  now  draws  forth  applause  at  Exeter  Hall,  the  story 
of  these  troubled  years.  Then  it  will  be  said  that  there  was  a  por. 
tion  of  the  empire  which  presented  a  striking  contrast  to  a  portion 
of  the  rest.  Not  that  it  was  doomed  to  sterility,  for  the  soil  was 
fruitful  and  well  watered — not  that  it  wanted  facilities  for  com. 
merce  and  trade,  for  its  coasts  abounded  in  havens  marked  by 
nature  to  be  the  marts  of  the  whole  world — not  that  the  people 
were  too  proud  to  improve  these  advantages  or  too  pusillanimous 
to  defend  them,  for  iu  endurance  ef  toil  and  gallantry  of  spirit 


CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY.  329 

they  were  conspicuous  amongst  the  nations — but  the  bounty  of 
nature  was  rendered  unavailable  from  the  tyranny  of  man.  In  the 
twelfth  century  this-  fair  country  was  a  conquered  province,  the 
nineteenth  found  it  a  conquered  province  still.  During  the  interval 
many  great  changes  took  place  in  other  parts  of  the  empire,  con 
ducing  in  the  highest  degree  to  the  happiness  and  welfare  of  man 
kind  ;  but  to  Ireland  they  brought  only  aggravation  and  misery. 
The  Reformation  came,  bringing  with  it  the  blessings  of  Divine 
truth  and  intellectual  liberty.  To  Ireland  it  brought  only  religious 
animosity,  to  add  flame  and  fuel  to  the  heats  of  national  animosity, 
and  to  give,  in  the  name  of  "  Papist,"  another  war-cry  to  animate 
•the  struggle  between  England  and  Ireland.  The  Revolution  came, 
bringing  to  England  and  Scotland  civil  and  religious  liberty — to 
Ireland  it  brought  only  persecution  and  degradation.  In  1829 
came  Catholic  Emancipation,  but  it  came  too  late,  and  came  too 
ungraciously — it  came  as  a  concession  made  to  fear  ;  it  was  not 
followed  nor  accompanied  by  a  suitable  line  of  policy.  It  had 
excited  many  hopes — it  was  followed  by  disappointment.  Then 
came  irritation  and  a  host  of  perils  on  both  sides.  If  agitation 
produced  coercion,  coercion  gave  rise  to  fresh  agitation  :  the  diffi 
culties  and  danger  of  the  country  thickened  on  every  hand,  until 
at  length  arose  a  Government  which,  all  other  means  having  failed, 
determined  to  try  the  only  means  that  have  never  yet  been  fairly 
and  fully  applied  to  Ireland — humanity  and  justice.  The  State,  so 
long  the  step-mother  of  the  many,  and  the  mother  only  of  the  few, 
became  now  the  common  parent  of  all  the  great  family.  The  great 
body  of  the  people  began  to  look  upon  the  Government  as  a  kind 
and  beneficent  parent.  Battalion  after  battalion — squadron  after 
squadron — was  withdrawn  from  the  shores  of  Ireland ;  yet  every 
day  property  became  more  secure,  and  order  more  manifest.  Such 
symptoms  as  cannot  be  counterfeited — such  as  cannot  be  disguised 
— began  to  appear;  and  those  who  once  despaired  of  that  great 
portion  of  the  commonwealth,  began  to  entertain  a  confident  hope 


330  CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY. 

that  it  would  at  length  take  its  place  among  the  nations  of  Eu 
rope,  and  assume  that  position  to  which  it  is  entitled  by  its  own 
natural  resources,  and  by  the  wit  and  talent  of  its  children.  This, 
I  feel,  the  history  of  the  present  Government  of  Ireland  will  one 
day  prove.  Let  it  thus  go  on  ;  and  then  as  far  as  I  am  con 
cerned,  I  care  not  wThat  the  end  of  this  debate  may  be,  or  whether 
we  stand  or  fall.  That  question  it  remains  with  the  House  to 
decide.  Whether  the  result  will  be  victory  or  defeat  I  know  not ; 
but  I  know  that  there  are  defeats  not  less  glorious  than  even  vic 
tory  itself ;  and  yet  I  have  seen  and  I  have  shared  in  some  glori 
ous  victories.  Those  were  proud  and  happy  days — even  my  right 
hon.  Friend  who  last  addressed  you  will  remember  them, — those 
were  proud  and  happy  days  when,  amidst  the  praises  and  blessings 
of  millions,  my  noble  Friend  led  us  on  in  the  great  struggle  for  the 
Reform  Bill — when  hundreds  waited  around  our  doors  till  sun-rise 
to  hear  the  tidings  of  our  success — and  when  the  great  cities  of  the 
empire  poured  forth  their  populations  on  the  highways  to  meet  the 
mails  that  were  bringing  from  the  capital  the  tidings  whether  the 
battle  of  the  people  was  lost  or  won.  Those  days  were  such  days 
as  my  noble  Friend  cannot  hope  to  see  again.  Two  such  triumphs 
would  be  too  much  for  one  life.  But,  perhaps,  there  still  awaits 
him  a  less  pleasing,  a  less  exhilarating,  but  not  a  less  honourable 
task,  the  task  of  contending  against  superior  numbers,  through 
years  of  discomfiture,  to  maintain  those  civil  liberties — those  rights 
of  conscience  which  are  inseparably  associated  with  the  name  of 
his  illustrious  house.  At  his  side  will  not  be  wanting  men  who, 
against  all  odds,  and  through  all  the  turns  of  fortune,  amidst  evil 
days  and  evil  tongues,  will  defend  to  the  last,  with  unabated  spirit, 
the  noble  principles  of  Milton  and  Locke.  He  may  be  driven  from 
office — he  may  be  doomed  to  a  life  of  opposition — he  may  be  made 
the  mark  for  all  the  rancour  of  sects  which  may  hate  each  other 
with  a  deadly  hate,  yet  hate  his  toleration  more — he  may  be 
exposed  to  the  fury  of  a  Laud  on  one  side,  and  to  the  fanaticism 


CONFIDENCE     IN     THE     MINISTRY.  331 

of  a  Praise-God-Barebones — but  a  portion  of  the  praise  which  we 
bestow  on  the  old  martyrs  and  champions  of  freedom  will  not  be 
refused  by  posterity  to  those  who  have,  in  these  our  days,  endea 
voured  to  bind  together  in  real  union,  sects  and  races,  too  long 
hostile  to  each  other,  and  to  efface,  by  the  mild  influence  of  a 
parental  Government,  the  fearful  traces  which  have  been  left  by 
the  misrule  of  ages. 


THANKS  TO  THE  INDIAN  ARMY.* 

FEBRUARY    6,    1840. 

HE  could  not  refrain  from  expressing  his  high  gratification  at  the 
unanimity  of  the  House  on  this  very  interesting  occasion,  and  at 
the  manner  especially  in  which  the  right  hon.  Baronet  [Sir  B.  Peel] 
had  expressed  himself  in  reference  to  the  conduct  of  the  British  in 
India.  It  was  not  his  intention  to  enter  into  any  of  the  political 
questions  which  might  be  considered  in  connection  with  this  expe 
dition,  Cut  he  wished  to  make  a  remark  upon  what  had  fallen  from 
the  right  hon.  Baronet  in  reference  to  Lord  Auckland.  The  right 
hon.  Gentleman  had  omitted  all  mention  of  a  case  of  the  highest 
importance — the  case  of  Lord  Minto — to  whom,  after  the  reduction 
of  Java,  the  thanks  of  the  House  were  awarded  for  the  part  which 
he  had  taken  in  superintending  the  military  arrangements ;  nor 
was  the  right  hon.  Baronet  correct  in  supposing  that  Lord  Welles- 
ley  had  only  received  the  thanks  of  Parliament  as  Captain-general, 
since  he  also  received  the  thanks  of  the  House  in  connection  with 
the  taking  of  Seringapatam,  when  he  did  not  act  as  Captain-gene 
ral.  He  quite  conceded  to  the  right  hon.  Baronet  the  right,  and 
he  fully  admitted  the  propriety,  of  reserving  his  opinion  as  to  the 
general  policy  under  which  the  expedition  took  place,  till  the 
results  were  known ;  but  his  own  conviction  was,  that  this  great 
event  would  be  found,  in  its  results,  highly  conducive  to  the  pros 
perous  state  of  our  finances  in  India,  and  that,  as  a  measure  of 
economy,  it  would  be  found  not  less  deserving  of  praise  than  it 
confessedly  was  in  a  military  point  of  view.  He  could  bear  witness 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  li.  p.  1334-1336. 


THANKS     TO     THE     INDIAN     ARMY.  333 

to  some  of  the  circumstances  to  which  his  right  hon.  Friend  had 
alluded.  Among  many  peculiarities  of  our  Indian  empire  there 
was  no  one  more  remarkable  than  this — 'that  the  people  whom  we 
governed  there  were  a  people  whose  estimate  of  our  power  some 
times  far  exceeded  the  truth,. and  sometimes  fell  far  short  of  it. 
They  knew  nothing  of  our  resources ;  they  were  ignorant  of  our 
geographical  position  ;  they  knew  nothing  of  the  political  condition 
of  the  relative  power  of  any  of  the  European  states.  They  saw  us 
come  and  go,  but  it  was  upon  an  element  with  which  they  were 
not  acquainted,  and  which  they  held  in  horror.  It  was  no  exag 
geration  to  state  that  not  merely  the  common  people,  but  the  upper 
classes — nay,  even  the  ministers  of  the  native  provinces — were, 
almost  without  exception,  so  profoundly  ignorant  of  European 
affairs  that  they  could  not  tell  whether  the  King  of  the  French  or 
the  Duke  of  Modena  was  the  greatest  potentate.  Further,  he  could 
tell  the  House  this — when  he  was  in  India  there  was  a  restless, 
unquiet  feeling  existing  in  the  minds  of  our  subjects,  neighbours, 
and  subsidiary  allies — a  disposition  to  look  forward  to  some  great 
change,  to  some  approaching  revolution ;  to  think  that  the  power 
of  England  was  no  longer  what  it  had  been  proved  to  be  in  former 
times.  There  was  a  disposition  to  war  on  the  part  of  Ava  and 
other  states ;  on  every  side,  in  short,  there  had  prevailed  a  feeling 
in  the  public  mind  in  India,  which,  unchecked,  might  have  led  the 
way  to  great  calamities ;  but  this  great  event,  this  great  triumph 
at  Ghuznee,  acted  so  signally  by  the  British  troops,  had  put  down, 
with  a  rapidity  hardly  ever  known  in  history,  this  restless  and 
uneasy  feeling ;  and  there  never  was  a  period  at  which  the  opinion 
of  our  valour  and  skill,  and  what  was  of  equal  importance,  the 
confidence  in  our  "  star,"  was  higher  than  it  now  was  in  India. 
He  believed  that  the  right  hon.  Baronet  opposite  would  find  reason 
to  think  that  all  the  expense  incurred  by  these  thousands  of  camels 
and  thousands  of  troops  was  sound  and  profitable  economy.  He 
had  seen  something  of  the  brave  men  who  defended  our  Indian 


334  THANKS     TO     THE     INDIAN     ARMY. 

empire,  and  it  had  been  matter  of  great  delight  to  him  to  see  the 
warm  attachment  to  their  country  and  their  countrymen  which 
animated  them  in  that  distant  land,  and  which  added  a  ten-fold 
force  to  the  zeal  and  vigour  with  which  they  performed  their  ardu 
ous  duties.  While  he  was  on  this  point,  let  him  remark  that  there 
was  a  disposition  in  that  gallant  service  to  imagine  that  they  were 
not  sufficiently  appreciated  at  home ;  to  think  that  the  Indian  ser 
vice  was  not  so  highly  considered  in  England  as  other  services  not 
less  able,  nor  performed  with  less  jeopardy,  in  other  countries.  It 
was  extraordinary  to  see  the  interest,  with  what  gratification,  the 
smallest  scrap,  the  merest  line,  in  an  English  newspaper,  conveying 
any  praise  on  this  service,  was  received  by  them,  and  their  delight 
would  be  extreme  when  they  came  to  read  the  vote  of  thanks 
which  had  been  conferred  on  them  unanimously  by  the  House  of 
Lords,  and  which  he  trusted  would  be  passed  as  unanimously  by 
the  House  of  Commons,  the  more  especially  accompanied  as  it  was 
by  the  testimony  to  their  merits  borne  by  the  greatest  general  that 
England  ever  produced.  At  the  same  time  that  this  well-merited 
tribute  conferred  the  highest  pleasure  on  the  brave  men  who  shared 
in  the  expedition,  it  would  serve  as  a  powerful  inducement  to  every 
other  man  in  that  gallant  service  to  expose  himself  to  every  peril 
and  every  privation  when  the  interests  of  the  empire  required  it. 


335 


PRIVILEGE— STOCKDALE  v.  HANSARD—BILL  TO 
SECURE  PUBLICATION.* 

MARCH   6,   1840. 

HE  promised  not  to  detain  the  House  for  more  than  a  few  minutes, 
but  he  confessed  he  had  listened  with  so  much  pain  to  the  expres 
sions  of  his  noble  Friend,  and  of  one  or  two  other  Gentlemen 
with  whom,  during  the  former  proceedings  upon  this  subject,  he 
had  most  cordially  concurred,  that  he  was  exceedingly  unwilling  to 
allow  the  question  to  go  to  a  division  without  explaining,  very 
briefly,  the  ground  upon  which  he  should  give  his  vote.  He  had 
not  as  yet  taken  any  part  in  the  discussions  upon  this  question. 
He  would  not  again  go  over  the  ground  which  others  had  already 
trod  with  an  ability  and  eloquence  which  he  was  sensible  he  could 
only  feebly  imitate.  He  would  only  say,  in  general,  that  he 
believed  the  House  of  Commons  to  be,  by  the  law  of  the  land, 
the  sole  judge  of  its  own  privileges — that  he  believed  the  privilege 
of  publication  to  be  by  the  law  of  the  realm  one  of  the  privileges 
of  the  House — that  he  believed  it  to  be  a  privilege  essential  to 
the  due  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  House — that  he  believed 
the  decision  of  the  Queen's  Bench,  which  attacked  that  privilege, 
to  have  been  a  decision  founded  not  on  law  nor  on  reason,  and  that 
he  never  could  give  his  support  to  any  proposition  that  he  con 
ceived  would  tend  to  render  that  privilege  doubtful.  If  the  pro 
position  now  before  the  House  were  for  a  law  to  provide  that 
henceforth  this  privilege  should  belong  to  the  House  of  Commons, 
to  such  a  proposition  he  should  give  the  strongest  opposition. 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  52,  p.  1010-1016. 


336  BILL     TO     SECURE     PUBLICATION. 

But  such  was  not  the  proposition  of  his  noble  Friend.  He  could 
perfectly  understand,  that  by  proposing  to  enact  that  such  or  such 
should  be  the  right  and  privilege  of  the  House,  a  question  might 
be  raised  as  to  whether  such  a  right  or  privilege  had  previously 
existed.  The  declaration  that  it  should  exist  hereafter  might 
appear  to  carry  with  it  the  implication  that  it  had  not  existed 
previously.  But  the  proposition  in  the  present  case  was  altogether 
different.  All  that  was  now  proposed  was  by  a  new  law  to 
provide  a  new  remedy  for  enforcing  an  old  and  well-established 
and  undoubted  privilege.  He  would  take  instances  from  cases' 
perfectly  familiar  to  every  one.  Suppose  any  Gentleman  should 
propose  to  bring  in  a  law  to  provide  that  a  person  holding  a  bill 
of  exchange  for  a  good  consideration,  should  be  entitled  to  have 
an  action  against  the  acceptor  of  that  bill,  to  recover  payment. 
The  consequence  of  such  a  proceeding  would  be  to  throw  into  a 
state  of  doubt  the  whole  of  the  negotiable  paper  current  throughout 
the  kingdom.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  a  bill  were  proposed  to 
this  effect — that  the  means  of  holders  of  bills  of  exchange  not 
being  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  recover  payment,  therefore  other 
means  should,  by  a  new  enactment,  be  extended  to  them — would 
any  person  tell  him  that  a  measure  of  such  a  nature,  acknow 
ledging  the  right  to  recover  in  the  fullest  extent,  but  giving  to  the 
holders  of  negotiable  papers  an  additional  remedy — would  any 
one  tell  him  that  such  a  measure  would,  in  the  smallest  degree, 
bring  into  question  the  previously  existing  right  of  the  holders  of 
bills  of  exchange  to  proceed  against  the  acceptors  to  recover 
payment  ?  In  point  of  fact,  the  proposition  now  before  the  House 
was  not  to  provide,  by  a  new  law,  that  the  House  should  have  the 
privilege  of  publication — not  to  affect  any  of  the  existing  remedies 
which  the  House  already  possessed  for  the  vindication  of  its 
privileges — but  simply  to  superadd  a  new  remedy.  It  was  not 
even  proposed  to  substitute  the  new  remedy  for  the  old  ones. 
The  bill  proposed  by  his  noble  Friend  left  the  old  remedies  abso- 


BILL     TO     SECURE     PUBLICATION.  337 

lutely  untouched.  If,  after  the  passing  of  this  bill,  any  other  person 
should  think  fit  to  imitate  the  example  of  Mr.  Stockdale,  and  to  set 
the  privileges  of  the  House  at  defiance,  it  would  be  as  much  as  ever 
in  the  power  of  the  House  to  send  that  person  to  prison.  As  he 
understood  the  bill,  it  did  not  acknowledge,  did  not  in  any  way 
imply,  that  the  House  would  not  retain  that  power.  It  was  founded 
merely  upon  this — that  the  remedies  which  the  House  now  pos 
sessed,  were  in  some  respects  imperfect,  in  some  respects  incon 
venient.  Did  not  every  Member  of  the  House  acknowledge  that 
fact  ?  The  noble  Lord  had  referred  to  conversations  which  took 
place  out  of  that  House.  Was  there  a  single  Member  of  the 
House  who,  when  he  went  into  the  lobby,  would  hesitate  to  admit 
that  there  were  some  imperfections — some  inconveniences  in  the 
remedies  which  it  at  present  possessed  for  the  vindication  of  its 
privileges  ?  Was  that  a  perfect  remedy  which  applied  only  to 
one  half  of  the  year — which  protected  the  privilege  of  the  House 
during  the  sitting  of  Parliament,  but  left  it  wholly  unguarded 
during  the  recess  ?  Was  that  a  perfect  remedy  which  could  only 
be  applied  by  means  of  so  large  and  so  divided  an  assembly  as 
the  House  of  Commons  ?  The  noble  Lord  had  stated  what  he 
thought  to  be  the  cause  why  so  many  Gentlemen  on  the  opposite 
side  of  the  House  had  ranged  themselves  against,  what  he  con 
ceived  to  be,  the  undoubted  privilege  of  the  House.  But, 
whatever  the  cause,  could  there  be  any  doubt  as  to  its  effect  ? 
Was  there  any  doubt  that  there  was  within  the  walls  of  that 
House,  a  large  body  of  Gentlemen  who  had  done  everything  in 
their  power  to  prevent  the  House  from  enforcing  its  privileges  ? 
AVhat  had  been  the  loss  of  time  upon  this  question  ?  Was  it  not 
a  matter  of  regret,  that  more  time  than  had  been  occupied  in  the 
discussion  of  the  most  important  measures — measures  in  which 
the  interests  of  every  part  of  the  empire  were  deeply  concerned — 
had  this  year  been  devoted  to  the  discussion  of  a  subject  vexatious 
and  troublesome  in  itself,  important  no  doubt  in  many  particulars, 
VOL.  T.  15 


338  BILL    TO    SECURE    PUBLICATION. 

but  singularly  likely  to  be  misconstrued  and  misunderstood  by  the 
people  ?  His  noble  Friend  said,  he  thought  it  necessary  for  the 
vindication  of  the  privileges  of  the  House  to  imprison  the  sheriffs  ; 
but  at  the  same  time  he  said  he  acquitted  them  of  all  moral 
blame.  Was  it  not  a  matter  of  regret  that  the  House  to  vindicate 
itself  should  be  obliged  to  imprison  persons  guilty  of  no  moral 
blame  ?  Was  that  a  convenient  course  ?  Let  the  House  consider 
the  case  of  the  sheriff.  He  was  not  a  person  who  sought  his 
office — not  a  person  who  was  fined  for  his  office.  He  was  taken 
and  compelled  to  serve  whether  he  would  or  not.  He  often  made 
great  interest  to  be  exempted.  "  No  matter,"  said  the  right  hon. 
Gentleman,  "  you  take  him  and  compel  him  to  serve  you — you 
place  him  between  two  opposite  forces — he  receives  commands  and 
counter  commands  from  both — he  cannot  obey  both,  and  the 
moment  he  obeys  one  he.  is  sent  to  prison  for  not  obeying  the 
other."  Was  that  a  state  of  the  law  desirable  to  be  continued  ? 
Was  it  a  state  of  the  law  in  which  the  great  body  of  the  people 
were  likely  to  acquiesce  ?  He  admitted  that  the  House  had  no 
choice  in  the  matter ;  it  was  compelled  to  imprison  the  sheriffs. 
He  admitted,  also,  that  the  noble  Lord  the  member  for  Lancashire 
had  stated  last  night,  that  if  the  House  had  not  imprisoned  the 
sheriffs,  the  Court  of  Queen's  Bench  would  have  imprisoned  them. 
But  that  fact,  so  far  from  being  an  argument  against  the  course 
now  proposed  by  his  noble  Friend,  appeared  to  him  to  furnish  a 
strong  ground  in  support  of  it.  If  a  nation  were  forced  to  go  to 
war,  it  was  oftentimes  compelled  to  make  the  innocent  suffer  with 
the  guilty.  If,  for  instance,  there  were  a  small  neutral  Power 
situated  between  two  hostile  and  belligerent  nations,  however 
anxious  that  small  power  might  be  to  preserve  its  neutrality,  and 
to  keep  itself  distinct  from  the  quarrels  of  its  neighbours,  it  would 
almost  inevitably  happen,  that  one  or  other  of  the  two  great 
Powers  would  find  it  necessary  for  the  protection  of  its  own  imme 
diate  interests,  or  for  the  better  prosecution  of  its  hostilities,  to 


BILL     TO     SECURE     PUBLICATION.  339 

encroach  on  the  independence  of  the  smaller  State,  and  to  make 
it  an  instrument  in  the  advancement  of  its  own  views.  This  was 
conspicuous  during  the  last  war  in  the  case  of  Holland.  We 
know  how  little  Holland  liked  Bonaparte — how  it  detested  his 
continental  system,  how  it  hated  his  dominion — yet  we  were  at 
last  forced  to  blockade  her  ports,  and  to  treat  her  with  severity, 
because  it  was  essential  to  the  preservation  of  our  own  interests 
and  our  own  independence.  In  the  same  way  did  he  (Mr. 
Macaulay)  defend  the  necessity  which  compelled  the  House  of 
Commons  to  send  the  sheriffs  to  prison.  But  he  maintained  that 
this  was  a  state  of  things  which  rendered  it  absolutely  necessary 
for  the  House  to  resort  to  some  legislative  enactment  to  prevent  a 
recurrence  of  similar  difficulties  for  the  future.  He  did  not  under 
stand  what  a  Legislature  existed  for,  if  not  to  meet  such  cases  as 
these.  If  there  were  two  powers  in  the  State,  neither  of  which 
was  in  the  nature  of  a  Court  of  Appeal  from  the  other — if  these 
two  powers  gave  counter  orders  to  the  same  officer,  and  had  the 
power  of  imprisoning  him  if  he  disobeyed — if  the  officer,  dis 
tracted  between  the  two,  obeyed  one  and  was  immediately  impri 
soned  by  the  other,  surely,  if  ever  there  was  a  case  in  the  world 
for  legislative  interference,  that  was  one.  Nay,  he  would  go 
further  :  the  Solicitor- General  stated  last  night  that  the  House  had 
the  power  of  commitment ;  and  then  went  on  to  contend  that  all 
experience  had  shown  that  that  power  was  sufficient  to  enable  it 
to  vindicate  its  privileges.  No  doubt  it  would  be  sufficient,  if  it 
were  vested  in  the  hands  of  a  party  who  were  ready  to  exercise  it 
unsparingly  and  unmercifully.  If  the  House  were  in  all  cases  to 
do  that,  he  certainly  believed  that  it  would  have  no  difficulty  in 
carrying  its  point.  They  all  knew  how  the  ancestor  of  his  noble 
Friend  the  Member  for  Cornwall  (Lord  Eliot)  was  treated — how 
he  was  kept  in  prison  till  his  spirits,  health,  and  strength  gave 
way — how  his  imprisonment  was  continued  even  to  the  hour  of 
his  death.  But  in  the  present  day  it  was  impossible  for  .the  House 


-  BILL     TO     SECURE     PUBLICATION. 

of  Commons  to  pursue  so  liarsli  a  course.  Their  own  good  nature 
would  not  allow  them  to  do  so.  The  feelings  of  the  people  would 
not  permit  them  to  do  so.  The  very  moment  that  the  health  or 
spirits  of  a  prisoner  began  to  suffer,  that  moment  the  House  began 
to  relent,  and  either  upon  the  instant,  or  shortly  afterwards,  the 
prisoner  was  set  at  liberty.  So  that  when  the  House  possessed 
itself  of  a  prisoner  of  a  robust  and  hardy  constitution,  it  might 
have  the  power  of  completely  vindicating  its  privileges,  by  detain 
ing  him  in  prison  till  the  question  at  issue  was  arranged  ;  but  if 
it  happened  to  have  a  prisoner  of  a  bilious  and  apoplectic  habit, 
in  that  case  its  privileges  must  be  abandoned,  or  only  feebly 
asserted,  because  the  health  of  the  prisoner  suffered  from  confine 
ment.  Even  if  the  health  of  Mr.  Stockdale  himself  should  appear 
to  be  seriously  affected  by  his  imprisonment,  it  was  certain  that  he 
would  not  long  be  detained  in  custody.  Under  these  circum 
stances,  it  appeared  to  him,  that  the  House  was  absolutely  com 
pelled  to  seek  some  other  mode  of  protecting  and  vindicating  its 
privileges.  The  noble  Lord  had  asked,  what  would  be  the  effect 
if  this  bill  should  be  carried  through  the  House  of  Commons,  and 
lost  in  the  House  of  Lords.  He  hoped  that  the  bill  would  be 
carried  through  both  branches,  of  the  Legislature.  He  hoped — 
most  earnestly  hoped — that  the  other  House  of  Parliament  would 
interfere  to  save  the  country  from  the  scandals  and  the  horrors 
that  would  necessarily  follow,  if  it  drove  the  House  of  Commons, 
in  absolute  self-defence,  to  use  the  whole  of  the  extreme  power 
which  it  possessed  for  the  protection  of  its  privileges.  But  if  the 
Bill  should  unhappily  miscarry  in  the  House  of  Lords,  then  he 
said  this,  that  the  House  of  Commons  would  be  absolved.  They 
would  have  gone  to  the  other  House,  not  in  a  degrading  or 
humiliating  manner — they  would  have  said,  "  We  do  possess  the 
power  of  vindicating  our  privileges — we  have  the  power,  if  we 
please,  of  throwing  the  whole  of  the  country  into  confusion — we 
can  stop  the  supplies — we  can  stop  the  Mutiny  Act — there  is  no 


BILL     TO     SECURE     PUBLICATION.  3  1  I 

power  which  any  political  body  can  possess  which  we  do  not 
possess — we  have  the  power  of  imprisoning  every  man  who 
invades  our  privileges — we  can  commit  every  judge  in  the  country, 
not  being  a  peer,  if  he  do  not  respect  our  privileges.  We  have 
the  power  of  confining  every  ministerial  officer  who  shall  execute 
the  sentence  of  any  court,  if  that  sentence  be  at  variance  with 
our  privilege ;  but  it  is  not  our  wish,  by  means  like  these,  to 
enforce  even  the  most  necessary  of  our  privileges.  "We  apply  for 
a  new  remedy,  not  because  we  have  not  in  our  power  remedies 
that  are  sufficiently  stringent  and  effective,  but  because  those 
remedies  are  such,  that  some  of  them  cannot  be  applied  without 
the  dissolution  of  society,  and  a  cruel  pressure  upon  individuals ; 
we  have  remedies  sufficiently  severe — we  look  to  you,  my  Lords, 
to  assist  us  in  adopting  one  of  a  milder  nature ;  we  have  remedies 
sufficiently  powerful  to  enable  us  to  attain  our  ends,  but  which, 
from  their  severity,  would  be  disagreeable  to  the  great  body  of  the 
people — we  ask  you,  my  Lords,  to  give  us  a  remedy  which  the 
whole  of  the  people,  without  exception,  will  unite  in  approving." 
He  believed  that  by  going  before  the  House  of  Lords  in  that 
manner,  they  would  have  the  post  of  no  mean  suitors.  He 
believed  that  there  would  be  nothing  degrading  on  the  part  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  in  bringing  forward  a  measure  the  object 
of  which  was  to  secure  the  liberties  of  the  people,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  enable  the  House  to  act  with  greater  lenity  in  all  its 
dealings  with  those  who,  from  the  misfortune  of  their  situations, 
or  from  some  other  cause  over  which  they  had  little  or  no  control, 
had  been  guilty  of  violating  its  privileges.  He  believed  that,  if 
the  House  of  Lords  refused  to  give  its  assent  to  such  a  measure, 
the  jlouse  of  Commons  would  then  be  fairly  supported  by  public 
opinion  in' the  adoption  of  measures  much  stronger  than  any  to 
which  it  had  yet  resorted.  He  believed  that  measures  stronger 
even  than  those  suggested  by  the  hon.  and  learned  member  for 
Dublin,  would  find  a  support  out  of  the  House  greater  than  was 


342  BILL     TO     SECURE     PUBLICATION. 

imagined  by  any  who  sat  within  the  House,  if,  having  proposed  a 
mild  remedy  for  the  protection  of  its  privileges,  the  House  should 
be  told  by  the  Lords,  that  to  that  mild  remedy  they  would  not 
give  their  assent. 


343 


THE  ARMY  ESTIMATES.* 

MARCH  9,  1840. 

His  noble  Friend  (Lord  John  Russell)  had  relieved  him  from  the 
necessity  of  making  some  remarks  which  otherwise  he  should  have 
thought  necessary  in  reply  to  the  speech  of  the  hon.  Member  for 
Kilkenny.  He  should,  therefore,  at  present  only  say  that  any 
person  who  had  heard  that  speech,  and  who  was  unacquainted 
with  the  previous  transactions  of  the  country,  would  have  been 
very  slow  to  believe  that  the  military  establishment  proposed  this 
year  was  actually  lower  in  men  and  charge  than  that  for  which 
the  hon.  Gentleman  himself  both  voted  and  spoke.  It  was  only 
on  the  2d  of  August  last,  when  his  noble  Friend  proposed  a  sup 
plemental  estimate  of  75,000£.  and  an  addition  of  men  amounting 
to  5,000,  that  the  hon.  Gentleman  declared  he  would  not  take  on 
himself  the  responsibility  of  refusing  that  sum  of  money  and 
those  men,  which  his  noble  Friend  declared  necessary  for  the 
peace  and  honour  of  the  state.  He  should  be  glad  to  know  why 
the  arguments  which  the  hon.  Gentleman  had  used  that  evening 
might  not,  on  'the  2d  of  August  last  year,'  have  been  urged  with 
equal  effect.  All  the  hon.  Gentleman  had  said  respecting  the 
refusal  of  justice  to  Canada,  all  he  had  said  as  to  the  refusal  of  jus 
tice  to  England,  all  he  had  said  of  those  monopolies,  some  of  which 
he,  like  the  hon.  Gentleman,  disapproved,  as  pressing  severely  on 
the  people  of  this  country,  and  all  he  had  said  as  to  the  condition 
of  the  country,  might  be  said  exactly  with  equal  propriety  and 
effect  on  the  2nd  of  August  last  year,  as  it  was  now.  In  bringing 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  Hi.  p.  1087-1096. 


344  ARMY     ESTIMATES. 

forward  the  estimates,  which  he  should  have  the  honour  of  pro 
posing  to  be  laid  on  the  table,  he  should  have  the  satisfaction,  at 
all  events,  of  thinking  that  he  could  not  be  found  liable  to  the 
charge  of  profusion,  if  the  Hon.  Gentleman  was  acquitted  of  it. 
The  estimate  brought  forward  by  his  noble  Friend,  the  Member 
for  Northumberland,  in  February,  was  6,119,0687.  To  that  sum, 
in  August,  was  added  7o,000/.,  making  the  whole  charge 
6,1 94,06 Si.  The  whole  charge  this  year  would  be  40,000^.  more  ; 
but  in  this  sum  there  was  included  a  considerable  charge  for 
Indian  troops,  which  would  be  defrayed  out  of  the  Indian  revenues. 
The  whole  force  estimated  in  February,  1839,  including  the  force 
for  India,  was  109,818  men,  and  this  year  it  was  121,112,  making 
an  addition  of  11,294,  but  of  these  7,746  were  employed  in 
defence  of  India,  and  chargeable  on  the  revenues  of  that  country. 
There  remained  an  increase  of  3,548  to  be  added  to  the  5,000 
men  voted  last  August.  The  additional  force  that  he  should  have 
to  propose  was  4,088.  It  might  be  proper  to  explain  the  mode  in 
which  this  addition  was  made,  and  the  more  so,  because  it  would 
refute,  he  thought,  conclusively,  an  invidious  insinuation  of  the 
hon.  Member  for  Kilkenny.  About  500  were  to  be  added  by  an 
increase- of  three  companies  to  the  1st  West-Indian  regiment,  and 
he  trusted  that  such  a  sum  as  wTas  requisite  would  not  be  refused 
for  raising  a  force  which  would  spare  our  own  countrymen  from 
the  hardships  inseparable  from  foreign  service.  About  102  men 
were  provided  for  Malta,  which  the  local  authorities  declared  to  be 
absolutely  necessary,  not  only  for  the  garrison  but  for  port-guard. 
A  small  militia  (so  to,  speak)  was  required  for  Bermuda.  It  was 
thought  desirable  that  a  portion  of  the  youth  of  Bermuda  should 
be  formed,  not  as  a  separate  company,  but  as  a  sort  of  body 
appended  to  the  best  troops  from  England,  and  thus  initiated  in 
the  best  system  of  military  discipline  ;  and  after  having  been  for 
some  time  so  attached,  to  return  to  the  mass  of  the  population, 
being  relieved  by  a  new  set  of  young  men.  So  that,  in  the  course 


ARMY     ESTIMATES.  345 

of  a  few  years,  every  man  would'  be  trained  to  the  use  of  arms, 
and  be  capable  of  bearing  them  should  the  public  service  require 
it.  In  this  manner  was  made  the  addition  of  500  men  which  he 
had  spoken  of.  The  remaining  addition  was  made  by  65  men 
being  added  to  every  one  of  the  81  battalions  of  infantry  in  the 
United  Kingdom ;  thus  raising  each  from  835  to  900  men. 
These  65  men  consisted  of  4  Serjeants,  4  corporals,  and  57  privates. 
To  every  one  of  the  20  battalions  engaged  last  year  in  India  250 
men  were  added,  raising  each  from  853  to  1,103  men  ;  and,  lastly, 
of  the  two  battalions  transferred  to  India,  the  increase  was  made 
from  835  to  1,103,  being  an  addition  of  268.  And  nowjie  wished 
particularly  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  this  circumstance, 
because  the  hon.  Gentleman  the  Member  for  Kilkenny  had  said, 
he  had  observed  that  every  Government  had  an  interest  in 
proposing  an  increased  force,  because  it  placed  at  their  disposal 
many  comfortable  things.  Now  the  whole  additional  regimental 
charge  for  the  increase  to  the  81  battalions  he  had  referred  to,  did 
not  afford  the  Government  or  the  Horse  Guards,  the  means  of 
obliging  a  single  acquaintance,  or  conferring  a  favour  on  one  ten- 
pound  householder.  He  wished  the  House  to  understand,  that  if 
the  number  of  4,408  which  were  to  be  added  to  the  army,  were 
struck  off,  no  means  of  disarming  opposition,  or  gaining  support, 
would  be  taken  away  from  the  Crown.  If  any  Gentleman  took 
the  trouble  of  looking  through  the  different  ranks  of  the  service, 
he  would  find  that  the  charge  for  officers  this  year  was  diminished 
by  2,000?.  The  only  addition  to  the  foreign  force  which  would 
come  out  of  the  revenues  of  this  country  was  the  three  additional 
companies  added  to  the  1st  West-Indian  Regiment.  Of  the 
121,112  men,  who  it  was  proposed  should  compose  the  military 
establishment,  28,213  would  be  charged  on  foreign  revenue,  leaving 
92,899,  for  whose  maintenance  this  country  was  to  provide.  This 
estimate  *  was  somewhat  confused,  by  having  included  in  it  572 

men,  who  were  not  actually  charged  on  this  country,  but  who,  as 

15* 


346  ARMY     ESTIMATES. 

recruiting  companies  of  Indian  regiments,  were  included  in  the 
Mutiny  Act.  Any  man  disposed  to  approve  of  this  measure, 
would  have  no  difficulty  in  approving  of  the  many  parts  of  the 
estimate  which  contributed  to  it.  The  increase  in  the  force  suffi 
ciently  explained  the  increase  in  the  regimental  charge  in  the 
medical  department,  and  the  small  increase  for  religious  books  and 
tracts  granted  to  the  soldiers.  Considering  that  20,000  men  had 
been  raised  within  the  last  year,  that  the  applications  for  works  of 
this  nature  had  been  numerous  and  pressing,  and  the  assistance  of 
benevolent  societies  not  sufficient  to  supply  this  want,  he  thought 
he  was  justified  in  allotting  200/.  to  this  purpose.  Here  was  one 
item  about  which  he  believed  it  was  usual  to  make  some  state 
ment,  and  he  should  say  a  few  words  respecting  it.  As  to  the 
good-conduct  pay,  there  was  not  an  increase  but  a  diminution. 
The  full  effect  of  it  would  not  be  felt  until  1843.  The  principle 
of  a  good  conduct-warrant  „  was  this,  that  a  soldier  who  had 
behaved  well  during  seven  years,  received  an  additional  Id.  a-day 
to  his  pay.  Every  soldier,  since  183C,  had  the  option  of  calling 
the  old  additional  pay  the  good-conduct  pay.  The  former  was 
superior  in  this  respect,  that  it  could  not  be  taken  away  unless  by 
court-martial,  and  it  was  no  less  honourable  than  secure,  for  the 
soldier  entitled  to  it  had  the  power  of  wearing  the  good-conduct 
badge.  The  consequence  was,  that  in  1840,  at  which  time  the 
soldiers  enlisted  in  1833  would  have  completed  their  seven  years, 
we  might  expect  a  considerable  addition  to  the  soldiers  receiving 
good-conduct  pay.  But  it  was  not  until  1843  that  the  effects  of 
the  new  system,  which  he  confidently  expected  would  be  found 
highly  beneficial,  could  be  ascertained.  The  number  of  the  men 
wearing  the  good-conduct  badge  was  about  13,000.  He  had  felt 
it  necessary  to  make  a  slight  addition  to  the  article  of  provisions, 
forage,  &c.  This  he  had  estimated  at  245, OOO/.,  and  he  saw  little 
reason  to  expect  a  falling  off  in  that  charge.  The  reason  was 
this  :  It  was  known  to  the  committee  that  the  Australian  colonies 


ARMY     ESTIMATES.  347 

h,ad  suffered  severely  from  calamities,  which  seemed  to  be  a  set  off 
against  the  physical  blessings  with  which  they  were  endowed. 
The  men  had  suffered  from  the  effects  of  a  most  cruel  drought ; 
they  had  been  excluded  from  the  benefits  of  tea,  and  of  vegetables 
in  their  soup,  and  in  consequence  of  the  high  price  of  provisions 
they  had  been  reduced  from  three  to  two  meals  a  day,  one  of 
which  was  scanty  and  unpalatable,  consisting  only  of  oatmeal. 
These  privations  had  fallen  with  the  utmost  cruelty  upon  those 
to  whom  our  gallant  men  were  most,  attached,  and  the  medical 
men  reported  that  the  effects  of  the  scarcity  were  visible  upon  the 
women  and  children  attached  to  the  regiments.  Under  these  cir 
cumstances,  it  would  be  impossible  to  maintain  proper  and  efficient 
discipline,  and  therefore,  if  even  all  considerations  of  humanity 
were  discarded,  policy  alone  would  dictate  attention  to  that  point. 
In  fact,  to  a  certain  and  partial  extent,  discipline  had  already 
given  way,  and  in  one  regiment  the  crime  of  theft  had  spread  to 
some  extent.  It  was,  in  consequence,  therefore,  of  the  distress 
which  the  gallant  and  deserving  men  serving  in  the  colonies  had 
suffered  that  he  had  made  this  addition  of  5,000^.  to  the  estimates. 
In  the  estimate  there  were  three  charges  upon  which,  as  they 
were  perfectly  new,  it  would  be  necessary  to  enter  somewhat  into 
detail.  The  first  was  a  charge  of  3,500£.  for  schoolmistresses. 
He  saw  some  of  his  hon.  Friends  near  him  smiled,  but  they  were 
perhaps  not  aware,  as  indeed  he  himself  was  not  until  a  few 
weeks  ago,  of  the  strong  reason  there  existed  for  this  charge. 
The  number  of  female  children  actually  accompanying  our  regi 
ments,  was  not  less  than  10,000.  Those  children  were  in  the  most 
emphatic  manner  called  "the  children  of  the  State."  For  the 
public  service  they  were  hurried  from  place  to  place — from  Malta 
to  Gibraltar,  from  Gibraltar  to  the  West-Indies — from  the  West 
Indies  to  Halifax,,  as  the  common  weal  might  require.  It  would, 
therefore,  be  inexcusable  if  we  did  not  provide  these,  at  a  small 
expense,  with  some  means  of  instruction.  Ever  since  1811  a 


348  ARMY     ESTIMATES. 

schoolmaster  had  been  attached  to  every  regiment,  and  he  thought 
that  there  should  be  a  depot  for  the  instruction  of  female  children 
also,  under  the  superintendence  of  a  schoolmistress,  who  might  be 
probably  the  wife  of  a  serjeant,  and  whose  duty  would  be  to 
instruct  them  in  reading,  writing,  needlework,  and  the  rudiments 
of  common  knowledge  ;  with  such  simple  precepts  of  morality 
and  religion  as  a  good  plain  woman  of  that  rank  might  be  sup 
posed  capable  of  imparting  to  them.  The  next  vote  to  which  he 
had  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  was  10,000/.  for  the 
formation  of  a  veteran  battalion  in  Canada,  where  desertions  had 
occurred  to  an  extent  unknown  elsewhere.  About  six  years  ago 
an  inquiry  had  been  made,  and  it  was  found — there  being  there  at 
that  time  2,500  rank  and  file — that  desertions  had  taken  place  to 
the  number  of  663,  while,  during  the  same  period,  the  desertions 
from  the  whole  British  army  had  been  only  2,240.  These  deser 
tions  in  Canada  had  not  been  confined  to  bad  and  disreputable 
characters — non-commissioned  officers  and  men  of  respectability 
and  good  conduct  had  deserted.  Nor  was  this  symptom'  of 
desertion  to  be  ascribed  to  distress,  for  many  had  gone  away 
leaving  behind  them  their  necessaries  and  arrears  of  pay.  Why 
desertion  should  take  place  more  frequently  in  North  America 
than  in  any  other  part  of  the  empire  it  was  not  difficult  to  explain. 
In  this  country,  the  situation  of  the  soldier  was  as  comfortable,  he 
might  say  more  so,  than  that  of  the  labourer,  to  which  class 
generally  the  soldier  belonged.  In  many  of  the  colonies  physical 
difficulties  opposed  themselves  to  flight.  When  in  Malta,  the 
soldiers  were  surrounded  by  sea ;  wlien  at  the  Cape,  they  could 
only  escape  from  their  quarters  to  fly  to  the  dwellings  of 'savages  ; 
and  as  to  India,  he  could  imagine  no  situation  more  miserable 
than  that  of  a  deserter  in  that  country,  wandering  amidst  its  vast 
regions,  amongst  a  people  of  a  strange  race  and  colour,  and  his 
footsteps  pursued  by  the  power  of  British  law.  But  with  respect 
to  the  American  colonies,  the  case  was  widely  different.  There 


ARMY     ESTIMATES.  349 

the  facilities  of  escape  to  the  United  States  were  many,  and  the 
temptation  strong.  The  soil  was  flourishing,  and  the  wages  of 
labour  high.  The  consequence 'was  that  the  high  wages,  but 
still  more  the  exaggerated  representations  that  were  put  forth  of 
the  ease  and  luxury  enjoyed  by  the  labourer  in  America,  had  con 
stantly  drawn  away  our  soldiers  from  Canada.  Several  plans  had 
been  proposed  for  meeting  this  evil.  It  had  been  proposed,  and 
he  thought  wisely,  that  Canada  should  be  the  last  point  in  rotation, 
to  which  the  troops  on  colonial  service  should  be  sent.  There 
would  then  be  a  great  number  of  men  with  additional  pay  and 
good  conduct  pay,  and  those  higher  advantages  would  tend  to 
keep  the  men  faithful  to  their  colours.  It  had  also  been  thought 
that  advantages  would  arise,  and  the  temptation  to  which  he  had 
adverted  be  counteracted,  if  the  Government  were  to  hold  out  to 
the  oldest  and  most  tried  of  the  troops  in  Canada  a  sort  of 
military  retirement,  which  should  serve  as  a  reward  to  those  who 
remained  faithful  to  their  colours.  Such  had  been  the  opinion  of 
his  noble  Friend,  the  late  Secretary  at  War,  and  of  Lord  Seaton, 
and  he  had  reason  to  believe  that  that  opinion  was  generally 
entertained  amongst  those  who  possessed  the  best  information 
upon  the  subject.  The  precise  details  of  the  plan  had  not  yet 
been  made  out,  and  much  correspondence  must  take  place  before 
it  could  be  produced  ;  but  as  it  was  not  improbable  that,  before 
the  House  again  assembled,  some  regiments  would  be  removed 
from  Canada,  it  would  be  desirable  that  some  men  of  good 
character  should  be  induced  to  remain  there.  On  these  grounds 
he  was  induced  to  ask  the  House  for  the  additional  grant  of 
10,000£.  on  account.  There  was  also  a  sum  of  5,000/.  on  account, 
for  the  purpose  of  forming  a  corps  for  service  in  St.  Helena — a 
place  which  required  to  be  defended  not  according  to  the  ordinary 
system.  The  whole  charge  for  the  land  force  then  was  3,511,S70Z. 
for  the  present  year.  That  applied  for  last  year,  including  the 
supplemental  estimate,  was  3,496,382/.  11*.  The  increase,  there- 


350  ARMY     ESTIMATES. 

fore,  on  this  part  of  the  charge  was  15,487£.  He  now  came  to 
the  staff,  in  which,  in  the  Home  Department,  there  was  an  increase, 
but  a  corresponding  decrease  on  the  foreign  staff.  On  the  whole 
there  was  an  increase  of  about  550^.  the  reasons  for  which  were  to 
be  found  in  the  state  of  the  provinces  of  New  Brunswick  and 
Nova  Scotia,  where  it  had  been  thought  desirable  that  that  which 
had  hitherto  been  a  major-general's  command  should  be  changed 
into  a  lieutenant-general's  command,  and  it  was  thought  that,  in 
consequence  of  the  high  responsibility  attached  to  that  station,  it 
should  be  filled  by  an  officer  of  great  talents,  and  receiving  addi 
tional  pay.  Why  the  charge  for  Canada  was  increased,  it  was 
unnecessary  for  him  to  state.  He  did  not  know  whether  hon. 
Gentlemen  were  aware  how  this  part  of  the  estimates  was  formed — 
they  were  framed  from  the  actual  expenditure  of  the  last  year  of 
which  they  had  the  accounts — thus  the  estimate  for  1839  was 
framed  upon  that  of  1837,  and  that  of  1840  upon  that  of  1838. 
With  respect  to  Jamaica,  the  addition  was  occasioned  by  the 
refusal  of  the  Assembly  to  vote  those  allowances  which  used  to  be 
considered  as  matters  of  course.  The  whole  charge  for  the  staff 
in  1839  was,  in  round  numbers,  155, OOO/.,  while  that  for  the 
present  year  was  164,000^.  being  an  increase  of  9,000£.  He  was 
sorry  to  say,  that  in  consequence  of  the  haste  with  which  these 
estimates  had  been  prepared,  there  was  an  error  in  the  third  line 
of  the  page,  containing  the  head  Public  Departments.  The  item 
stood  there  at  5,016Z.  17s.  6d.,  but  it  ought  to  be  6,016/.  17s.  6d. 
With  respect  to  the  Royal  Military  College,  it  was  unnecessary  for 
him  to  say  anything;  and  with  respect  to  the  Royal  Military 
Asylum,  the  estimate  for  this  year  was  16,70lZ.  Qs.  8<^,,  while  that 
for  last  year  was  17,486Z.  3s.  In  the  next  item  there  was  an 
increase  ;  it  was  in  the  charge  for  volunteer  corps.  The  vote  for 
last  year  was  79,136£.  185.,  while  that  he  asked  in  the  present 
estimate  was  92,993/.  This  had  arisen  from  the  expenses  of 
calling  out  the  yeomanry  in  aid  of  the  civil  power.  He  believed 


ARMY     ESTIMATES.  351 

an  would  admit  that,  in  the  trying  scenes  of  last  year,  the 
yeomanry  exhibited  all  the  valour  and  firmness  for  which  those 
corps  were  distinguished  ;  but  in  no  instance,  he  bolieved,  had  they 
behaved  with  rigour  and  harshness,  or  otherwise  than  with  pro 
priety  and  discretion.  While,  then,  the  whole  charge  for  effective 
estimates  for  last  year  was  3,807,073?.,  the  charge  for  the  present 
year  was  3,845,450?. ;  being  an  increase  of  3 9,3 7 7 1.  He  now 
came  to  the  non-effective  estimates.  Under  the  head  of  Rewards 
for  Service,  there  was  a  small  reduction.  The  amount  in  1839 
was  16,041Z.  185. ;  while  for  the  present  year  it  was  15,815?.  10s. 
\d.,  being  a  decrease  of  226?.  The  pay  for  unattached  general 
officers  last  year  was  102,000?. ;  this  year  it  was  92,000?.,  being  a 
reduction  of  10,000?.  The  number  of  .general  officers  deceased 
who  had  received  that  pay  last  year  was  fifteen,  and  the  number 
promoted  to  regiments  nine.  The  number  of  Chelsea  pensioners 
had  decreased  upwards  of  1,000,  and  he  understood  there  was  a 
balance  in  the  hands  of  the  hospital,  and  he  thought  they  might 
venture  to  make  a  reduction  of  16,667?.  Before  he  sat  down,  he 
could  not  help  making  some  few  observations  on  what  had  fallen 
from  the  hon.  Member  for  Kilkenny.  He  knew  well  how  zealous 
that  hon.  Gentleman  was  in  the  cause  of  economy  ;  but  he  must 
be  permitted  to  say  that  that  hon.  Gentleman  had  never  given  a 
vote  so  truly  in  favour  of  the  cause  of  economy  and  of  civil 
liberty,  as  when  last  August  he  voted  for  the  increase  of  the  army 
by  5,000  men,  by  which  he  now  proposes  to  reduce  it.  He 
believed  that  that  was  a  just  and  an  economical  vote.  He  had 
never  for  a  moment  doubted,  that,  on  any  great  crisis  that  might 
befal  this  country,  the  force  marshalled  on  the  side  of  law  and 
order  would  be  found  to  be  irresistible,  and  that  this  great  country 
never  could  be  given  over  to  the  hands  of  freebooters ;  but  at  the 
same  time,  when  he  considered  the  wealth  of  our  great  cities,  it 
was  not  utterly  impossible  that  a  mob,  exacerbated  and  infuriated 
by  dishonest  leaders,  might  have  inflicted  calamities  that  might 


352  ARMY     ESTIMATES. 

have  led  to  a  crisis  which  the  ingenuity  and  good  fortune  of  years 
could  scarcely  have  effaced.  Once  and  once  only,  had  this  great 
metropolis  been  in  the  power  of  a  mob,  who  for  a  short  time  had 
shown  themselves  to  be  stronger  than  the  law,  and  that  was  on 
the  occasion  of  the  No  Popery  Riots  in  the  time  of  Lord  George 
Gordon.  It  was  a  matter  of  history  that,  at  that  time,  a  sum  was 
awarded  for  compensation  for  injuries  done  to  a  single  house,  in  a 
single  street,  greater  in  amount  than  that  which  was  voted  last 
year  for  the  additional  5,000  men.  Therefore  he  would  repeat 
that  the  hon.  Member  for  Kilkenny  had  never  given  a  more 
economical  vote  than  he  did  in  the  August  of  last  year.  It  had 
been  well  remarked  by  Adam  Smith,  that  though  standing  armies 
were  found  hostile  to  the  liberty  of  the  subject,  yet  that  principle 
must  be  laid  down  with  qualification.  He  believed  that  the 
remarks  of  that  great  man  upon  this  subject  were  both  ingenious 
and  just.  He  believed  that  the  question  before  the  House  a  few 
months  ago  was  simply,  whether  the  force  should  be  increased,  or 
whether  the  Government  should  revert  to  the  policy  that  had  been 
tried  by  the  administration  of  Mr.  Pitt.  He  would  say,  then,  that 
whoever  voted  on  that  occasion  for  that  increase  of  force,  voted 
for  the  House  of  Commons  itself — for  the  freedom  of  the  people — 
for  the  liberty  of  the  press — for  the  security  of  property — in  fact, 
for  all  the  characteristics  of  a  free  state.  Firmly  was  he  convinced 
that  the  most  happy  and  beneficial  effects  flowed  from  that  vote. 
Nothing  had  since  occurred  that  could  justify  her  Majesty's  Minis 
ters  in  diminishing  their  means  or  their  power  of  upholding  and 
maintaining  intact  and  uninjured  the  peace,  the  honour,  the  dignity 
and  security  of  this  realm.  He  therefore  would  place  the  vote  in 
the  hands  of  the  Chairman,  with  the  strongest  confidence  that  it 
would  receive  the  approbation  of  the  Committee.  The  right 
hon.  Gentleman  concluded  by  moving,  "  That  a  number  of  land 
forces,  not  exceeding  93,471  men  (exclusive  of  the  men  employed 
in  the  Territorial  Possessions  of  the  East  India  Company),  commis- 


ARMY     ESTIMATES.  353 

sioned  and  non-commissioned  officers  included,  be  maintained 
for  the  service  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland,  from  the  1st  day  of  April,  1840,  to  the  31st  day  of 
March,  1841." 


354 


THE  WAR  WITH  CHINA.* 

APRIL  7,  1840. 

IF  the  right  hon.  Baronet  (Sir  J.  Graham),  in  rising  as  the  pro 
poser  of  an  attack,  owned  that  he  felt  overpowered  with  the 
importance  of  the  question,  one  who  rose  in  defence,  might  cer 
tainly,  without  any  shame,  make  a  similar  declaration.  And  he 
must  say,  that  the  natural  and  becoming  anxiety  which  her 
Majesty's  Ministers  could  not  but  feel  as  to  the  judgment  which  the 
House  might  pass  upon  the  papers  which  had  been  presented  to 
them,  had  been  considerably  allayed  by  the  terms  of  the  motion  of 
the  right  hon.  Baronet.  It  was  utterly  impossible  to  doubt  the 
power  of  the  right  hon.  Baronet,  or  his  will  to  attack  the  pro 
ceedings  of  the  present  Administration ;  and  he  must  think  it  a 
matter  on  which  her  Majesty's  Ministers  might  congratulate  them 
selves,  that,  on  the  closest  examination  of  a  series  of  transactions 
so  extensive,  so  complicated,  and  on  some  points  so  disastrous,  such 
an  assailant  could  produce  only  such  a  resolution.  In  the  first 
place,  the  terms  of  the  resolution  were  entirely  retrospective,  and 
not  only  so,  but  they  related  to  no  point  of  time  more  recent  than 
a  year  ago  ;  for  he  conceived  that  the  rupture  between  this  country 
and  China  must  date  from  the  month  of  March,  1839,  and  there 
had  been  no  omission  and  no  despatch  of  a  later  date  that  could 
have  been  the  cause  of  the  rupture  of  our  friendly  relations.  He 
conceived,  therefore,  that  the  present  resolution  was  one  which 
related  entirely  to  past  transactions,  and  while  he  did  not  dispute  the 
right  of  the  right  hon.  Baronet  to  found  a  motion,  or  the  right  of  the 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  liii.  p.  704-720. 


WAR     WITH     CHINA.  355 

House  to  pass  any  vote  censuring  any  bygone  misconduct  on 
the  part  of  her  Majesty's  Ministers,  he  must  at  the  same  time  feel 
gratified  that  the  right  hon.  Baronet  did  not  censure  any  portion 
of  the  present  policy  of  the  Government,  and  that  he  did  not  think 
fit  in  the  present  motion  to  raise  any  question  as  to  the  propriety 
of  the  measures,  which,  since  the  year  1839,  her  Majesty's  Minis 
ters  had  adopted.  He  saw,  also,  with  pleasure  that  the  right  hon. 
Gentleman  charged  the  Administration  with  no  offence  of  commis 
sion  ;  that  he  imputed  to  them  no  impropriety  of  conduct,  no 
indiscretion,  no  step  which  had  either  lowered  the  national  honour 
or  given  to  China  any  just  cause  of  offence.  All  the  complaint 
was,  that  they  had  not  foreseen  what  circumstances  might  by  pos 
sibility  arise,  and  that  they  had  not  given  power  to  the  represen 
tative  of  her  Majesty  to  meet  any  such  unforeseen  circumstances ; 
and  he  must  say  that  such  a  charge  was  one  which  required,  and 
which  ought  to  receive,  the  most  distinct,  the  fullest,  and  the  most 
positive  proof,  because  it  was  of  all  charges  the  easiest  to  make, 
and  the  easiest  to  support  by  specious  reasoning,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  it  was  one  of  the  most  difficult  to  refute.  A  man  charged 
with  a  culpable  act  might  defend  himself  from  that  act,  but  it  was 
not  possible  in  any  series  of  transactions  that  an  objection  might 
not  be  made,  that  something  might  not  have  been  done  which,  if 
done,  would  have  made  things  better.  The  peculiarity  of  the  case 
then  before  them  was,  that  a  grave  charge  had  been  brought 
against  her  Majesty's  Ministers,  because  they  had  not  sent  sufficient 
instructions,  and  because  they  had  not  given  sufficient  power  to  a 
representative  at  a  distance  of  fifteen  thousand  miles  from  them  ; 
that  they  had  not  given  instructions  sufficiently  full,  and  sufficiently 
precise,  to  a  person  who  was  separated  from  them  by  a  voyage 
of  five  months.  He  was  ready  to  admit,  that  if  the  papers  then 
on  the  table  of  the  House  related  to  important  negotiations  with  a 
neighbouring  state,  that  if  they  related,  for  instance,  to  negotiations 
carried  on  in  Paris,  during  which  a  courier  from  Downing-street 


356  WAR     WITH     CHINA. 

coula  be  dispatched  and  return  in  thirty-six  hours,  and  could  be 
again  dispatched  and  again  return  in  as  short  a  period ;  if  such 
were  the  nature  of  the  facilities  for  the  parties  negotiating,  he 
would  say  without  hesitation  that  a  foreign  secretary  giving 
instructions  so  scanty  and  so  meagre  to  the  representative  of  the 
British  Government  was  to  blame.  But  he  said,  also,  that  the  con 
trol  which  might  be  a  legitimate  interference  with  functionaries 
that  were  near,  became  an  useless  and  a  needless  meddling  with 
the  functionaries  at  a  distance.  He  might  with  confidence  appeal 
to  Members  on  both  sides  of  the  House  who  were  conversant  with 
the  management  of  our  Indian  empire,  for  a  confirmation  of  what 
he  had  stated.  India  was  nearer  to  us  than  was  China ;  with 
India,  we  were  better  acquainted  than  we  were  with  China,  and  yet 
he  believed  that  the  universal  opinion  was,  that  India  could  be 
governed  only  in  India.  Indeed,  the  chief  point  which  occupied 
the  attention  of  the  authorities  at  home  was  to  point  out  the  gene 
ral  line  of  conduct  to  be  pursued ;  to  lay  down  the  general  prin 
ciples,  and  not  to  interfere  with  the  details  of  every  measure.  If 
hon.  Members  only  thought  in  what  a  state  the  political  affairs  of 
that  country  would  be  if  they  were  placed  under  the  sole  guidance  of 
a  person  at  a  distance  of  even  less  than  15,000  miles,  they  would 
at  once  see  how  absurd  such  a  proposition  was.  They  would  see  a 
dispatch  written  during  the  first  joy  at  the  news  of  the-  peace  of 
Amiens  received  while  the  French  invading  army  was  encamped  at 
Boulogne.  They  would  find  a  despatch  written  while  Napoleon  was 
in  Elba,  .arriving  when  he  was  the  occupant  of  the  Tuilleries ;  and 
they  would  have  positive  instructions  sent  whilst  he  was  in  the 
Tuilleries  to  come  into  operation  when  he  was  removed  to  St. 
Helena.  In  India,  also,  occurrences  were  continually  and  rapidly 
taking  place,  so  that  the  state  of  things  in  Bengal  or  in  the  Car- 
natic  would  have  changed  long  before  the  specified  instructions 
could  have  arrived,  and  they  all  knew  that  the  great  men  who  had 
retained  for  us  that  country,  Lord  Clive  and  Lord  Hastings,  had 


WAR     WITH     CHINA.  35  7 

done  so  by  treating  particular  instructions  from  a  distance  as  so 
much  waste  paper  ;  if  they  had  not  had  the  spirit  so  to  treat  them, 
we  should  now  have  no  empire  in  India.  But  the  state  of  China 
made  a  stronger  case  still.  Nor  was  this  all.  With  regard 
to  India,  a  politician  sitting  in  Leadenh all-street,  or  in  Cannon- 
row,  might  not  know  the  state  of  things  at  the  distance  of  India, 
but  he  might  be  acquainted  with  the  general  state  of  the  country, 
its  wants,  its  resources ;  but  with  regard  to  China  it  should  be 
recollected  that  that  country  was  not  only  removed  from  us  by  a 
much  greater  distance  than  India,  but  that  those  who  were  per 
mitted  to  go  nearest  knew  but  little  of  it ;  for  over  the  internal 
policy  of  China  a  veil  was  thrown,  through  which  a  slight 
glimpse  only  could  be  caught,  sufficient  only  to  raise  the  imagina 
tion,  and  as  likely  to  mislead  as  to  give  information.  The  right 
hon.  Baronet  had  honourably  told  the  House  that  the  knowledge 
of  Englishmen  residing  at  Canton  resembled  the  notions  which 
might  be  acquired  of  our  government,  our  army,  our  resources,  our 
manufactures,  and  our  agriculture,  by  a  foreigner,  who,  having 
landed  at  Wapping,  was  not  allowed  to  go  further.  The  advan 
tages  of  literature  even,  which  in  other  cases  presented  an  oppor 
tunity  of  holding  personal  intercourse  as  well  as  looking  into  the 
character  and  habits  of  remote  ages,  afforded  but  little  help  in  the 
case  of  China.  Difficulties  unknown  in  other  countries  there  met 
the  student  at  the  very  threshold ;  so  that  they  might  count  upon 
their  ringers  those  men  of  industry  and  genius,  one  of  whom  had 
been  referred  to  that  night,  who  had  surmounted  those  difficulties, 
which  were  unequalled  in  the  study  of  any  other  language 
which  had  an  alphabet.  And  under  these  circumstances,  with  a 
country  so  far  removed,  and  yet  as  little  known  to  the  residents  at 
Canton  itself  as  the  central  parts  of  Africa — under  these  circum 
stances,  he  said,  in  spite  of  the  jeers  of  hon.  Gentlemen  opposite, 
the  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  could  not  be  expected  to 
give  the  same  precise  instructions  to  the  representative  of  his  Sove- 


358  WAR     WITH     CHINA. 

reign  as  lie  could  to  our  Ministers  at  Brussels  or  the  Hague:  This 
was  evidently  the  feeling  of  the  Government  of  Earl  Grey,  of 
that  Government  to  which  the  right  hon.  Baronet  belonged,  and 
for  the  acts  of  which  he  claimed,  and  rightly  claimed,  a  full  share 
of  responsibility.  The  instructions,  to  which  the  right  hon. 
Baronet  was  a  party,  did  not  go  into  detail — they  laid  down  the 
broadest  general  principles — they  simply  told  the  representative  of 
her  Majesty  to  respect  the  usages  of  China,  and  to  avoid  by  all 
means  'giving  offence  to  the  prejudices  or  the  feelings  of  the 
Chinese.  As  for  precise  instructions,  they  never  gave  any.  When 
the  Duke  of  Wellington  came  into  office,  that  great  man,  well  versed 
as  he  was  in  great  affairs,  and  knowing  as  he  did,  that  even  a  man 
of  inferior  ability  on  the  spot  could  judge  better  than  the  ablest  man 
at  a  distance  of  15,000  miles,  in  the  only  despatch  which  he 
addressed  to  a  resident  at  Canton,  contented  himself  with  referring 
the  Superintendent  to  the  instruction  of  Lord  Palmerston.  Now, 
what  he  wished  to  impress  on  hon.  Gentlemen  was,  that  when 
charges  were  brought  against  the  Government  of  omitting  to 
give  instructions,  or  omitting  to  empower  our  representative,  or 
that  by  this  omission  had  been  produced  a  great  and  formidable 
crisis  in  the  relations  between  this  country  and  China,  this  charge 
ought  to  be  sustained  by  the  clearest,  by  the  fullest,  and  by  the 
most  precise  proof  that  such  was  one  of  the  causes,  if  not  the  prin 
cipal  cause  of  such  a  crisis,  and  that  proof  the  right  hon.  Baronet 
in  the  course  of  his  long  and  elaborate  speech  had  altogether  failed 
to  give.  He  had  selected  from  the  evidence  on  the  table  a  great 
mass  of  information  that  was  interesting,  and  much  that  was  by 
no  means  applicable  to  the  only  point  on  which  the  present  motion 
could  rest.  What  were  the  omissions  in  the  instructions  and  in 
the  power  given  to  our  representative  ?  The  right  hon.  Baronet 
had  read  some  despatches  of  the  East  India  Company  in  1832  ; 
and  he  had  also  discussed  the  conduct  of  Captain  Elliott  subse 
quent  to  the  rupture  ;  but  he  conceived  that  neither  the  one  nor 


WAR     WITH     CHINA.  359 

the  other  was  before  the  House  ;  that  he  had  entirely  forgotten  to 
notice  what  act  the  Government  might  have  done  which  it  had  not, 
and  which  might  have  prevented  the  present  unfortunate  position 
of  affairs.  What,  however,  were  the  omissions  of  which  the  right 
hon.  Baronet  complained  ?  They  were  four  in  number.  First) 
that  the  Government  had  omitted  to  correct  a  point  in  the  Order 
in  Council,  which  directed  the  Superintendent  to  reside  in  Canton  ; 
secondly,  that  they  had  omitted  to  correct  the  Order  in  Council  on 
the  point  which  showed  the  Superintendent  a  new  channel  of  com 
munication  with  the  Chinese  government ;  thirdly,  that  they  had 
omitted  to  act  upon  the  suggestion  of  the  memorandum  made  by 
the  Duke  of  Wellington  to  keep  a  naval  force  in  the  neighbour 
hood  of  Canton  ;  and,  fourthly,  what  was  most  important  of  all, 
that  they  did  not  give  sufficient  power  to  the  superintendent  to 
put  down  the  illicit  trade.  He  believed  that  there  was  not  one 
other  omission  specifically  mentioned  in  the  able  speech  of  the  right 
hon.  Gentleman.  With  regard  to  the  first  omission,  the  answer 
was  simple.  It  was  true  that  the  order  in  council,  directing  the 
superintendent  to  reside  at  Canton,  had  not  been  revoked  by  her 
Majesty's  Government.  But  it  was  also  true,  that  no  dispute  as 
to  the  residence  of  the  superintendent  had  anything  to  do  with 
the  unfortunate  rupture ;  it  was  true  that  that  dispute  was  perfectly 
accommodated.  Captain  Elliott  said,  in  a  letter  dated  Macao, 
March  18,  1837:— 

"  My  Lord — A  ship  upon  the  point  of  sailing  for  Bengal,  affords  me  a 
prospect  of  communicating  rapidly  with  your  Lordship,  by  the  means  of  an 
overland  mail  of  May.  I  seize  this  opportunity  to  transmit  the  translation 
of  an  edict,  just  procured  through  a  private  channel,  containing  the  impe 
rial  pleasure,  that  I  shall  be  furnished  with  a  passport  to  proceed  to 
Canton  for  the  performance  of  my  duties.  The  official  notification  may  be 
expected  from  Canton  in  the  course  of  a  few  days.  For  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  our  intercourse  with  China,  the  principle  is  most  formally 
admitted,  that  an  officer  of  a  foreign  sovereign,  whose  functions  are  purely 
public,  should  reside  in  a  city  of  the  empire.  His  Majesty's  Government 


360  WAR     WITH     CHINA. 

may  depend  upon  my  constant,  cautious,  and  earnest  efforts  to  improve  the 
state  of  circumstances.      I  have,  &c. 

(Signed)  "CHARLES  ELLIOTT." 

Therefore,  this  point  of  omission  which  the  right  hon.  Baronet 
made  an  article  of  charge  against  the  Government  was  no  charge  at 
all ;  for  two  years  before  the  rupture  the  point  had  been  fully  conceded 
in  the  most  formal  and  honourable  manner  by  the  Chinese  authori 
ties.  And  he  would  venture  to  say,  that  in  no  subsequent  letter 
was  there  any  document  which  indicated  that  the  place  of  residence 
of  the  superintendent  was  any  point  in  question.  Therefore,  he 
said  with  confidence,  that  the  first  of  the  right  hon.  Baronet's 
omissions  had  not  any  groundwork  on  which  it  could  rest.  The 
second  charge  was,  that  the  Government  did  not  alter  the  order  in 
council  to  direct  the  superintendent  as  to  his  future  communica 
tions  with  the  Government,  and  did  not  tell  him  not  to  communi 
cate  as  the  supercargos  used  to  do  with  the  Chinese  Government. 
To  that  alleged  case  of  omission  the  answer  was,  that  the  Chinese 
Government  had  fully  conceded  the  point.  Negotiations  had 
taken  place  between  Captain  Elliott  and  the  Chinese  authorities, 
and  the  dispute  was,  in  fact,  at  an  end.  As  to  the  question  which 
arose,  it  was  about  the  use  of  the  word  "  Pin ;"  the  point  was 
easily  answered,  because  Captain  Elliott  did  not  adhere  to  the 
construction  which  was  put  upon  it.  He  must  say,  that  Captain 
Elliott,  acting  under  the  discretion  which  it  was  absolutely  neces 
sary  that  every  Government  should  give  to  their  officers  at  a  dis 
tance,  had  given  up  the  point  of  superscription,  and,  therefore,  the 
second  omission  imputed  to  the  British  Government  by  the  right 
hon.  Baronet  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  present  state  of 
affairs.  The  third  charge  brought  forward  was,  that  the  Govern 
ment  had  not  provided  a  vessel  of  war  to  be  stationed  upon  the 
Chinese  coast  to  be  ready  to  act  upon  any  emergency  which  might 
arise.  What  was  the  recommendation  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington, 


WAR    WITH     CHINA.  361 

in  reference  to  this  very  subject?  It  was,  that  a  vessel  of 
war  should  be  off  Canton  ready  to  act  until  the  trade  of  the  Bri 
tish  merchants  should  return  to  its  proper  channel.  He  wrote  in 
reference  to  the  state  of  things  which  existed  at  that  time,  but 
there  was  not  one  syllable  in  the  despatch  of  the  noble  Duke  which 
showed  that  that  advice  should  extend  beyond  the  continuance  of 
the  existing  circumstances.  His  Grace  said,  that  he  should  recom 
mend  that,  until  trade  should  resume  its  ordinary  course,  there 
should  always  be  within  reach  of  Canton  a  stout  frigate  or  vessel 
of  war  ready  to  act  in  case  of  necessity ;  but  this  charge  was  not 
made  until  four  years  after  that  advice  was  given,  in  the  course  of 
which  Sir  George  Robinson  had  declared  that  affairs  had  been 
restored  to  their  usual  condition.  The  Duke  of  Wellington  recom 
mended  that  the  frigate  should  be  there  only  until  trade  should 
take  its  regular  course.  The  right  hon  Baronet  had  told  the  House 
that,  subsequently  to  that,  Sir  George  Robinson  had  brought 
about  a  peaceable  state  of  affairs ;  and  then,  after  that,  when  cir 
cumstances  had  occurred  which  he  would  venture  to  say  no  human 
mind  could  have  foreseen,  it  was  wondered  at,  and  fault  was 
found,  that  no  vessel  was  at  the  spot  pointed  out.  He  was  confi 
dent  that  nothing  was  contained  in  any  of  the  Duke  of  Welling 
ton's  prior  despatches  which  could  be  taken  to  exhibit  any  desire 
on  his  part  that  there  should  be  a  naval  force  constantly  upon  the 
Canton  station,  to  await  any  calamitous  event  which  might  take 
place.  Then  he  came  to  the  fourth  charge,  which  he  thought  was 
the  most  important ;  for  those  to  which  he  had  already  referred  he 
conceived  that  there  existed  no  ground  whatsoever.  The  fourth 
point  was,  that  the  English  Government,  having  legal  authority  to 
do  so,  had  omitted  to  send  to  the  superintendent  at  Canton  proper 
powers  for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  the  illicit  trade  which  they 
knew  was  carried  on  there.  In  the  first  place,  during  a  consider 
able  portion  of  time  since  the  present  administration  had  been  in 
office,  there  were  stronger  reasons  in  existence  than  there  had  been 
VOL.  r.  16 


362  WAR     WITH     CHINA. 

in  the  time  of  Lord  Grey,  or  when  the  Duke  of  Wellington  was 
Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  against  sending  over  such  powers. 
There  Avas  this  plain  and  obvious  reason,  that  down  to  the  month 
of  May,  1838,  the  Foreign  Secretary  had  very  strong  reasons 
to  believe  that  it  was  in  the  contemplation  of  the  government  of 
China  immediately  to  legalize  the  opium  trade,  which  had  undoubt 
edly  been  carried  on  in  disobedience  to  the  existing  law.  It  was 
quite  clear  from  these  papers,  though  it  Avas  not  easy  to  follow  all 
the  Avindings  of  Chinese  policy,  that  in  1.836,  the  attention  of  the 
government  of  that  country  was  called  in  a  very  peculiar  manner 
to  the  opium  trade.  The  system  under  which 'that  trade  had  been 
carried  on  was  this — it  had  been  prohibited  by  law,  but  connived 
at  in  practice.  The  Chinese  Government  appeared  to  think  that 
a  worse  state  of  things  could  not  exist ;  that  it  produced  all  the 
evils  of  a  contraband  trade;  that  it  gave  rise  to  as  much  intem 
perance  as  if  there  Avere  no  prohibition ;  and,  Avhat  they  looked 
upon  Avith  equal  regret,  that  the  exportation  of  silver  Avas  likewise 
as  great  as  if  there  Avas  no  prohibition  upon  it.  That  the  then 
existing  system  could  not  last,  seemed  to  have  been  the  opinion  of 
the  Chinese  authorities.  Tang-Tzee,  the  able  and  ingenious  Pre 
sident  of  the  Sacrificial  Offices,  who  he  was  sorry  to  perceive  had 
been  dismissed,  because  dismissal  in  China,  he  believed,  was  a 
much  more  severe  punishment  than  in  England,  had  argued  that 
it  was  unwise  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  the  drug ;  that  if  it 
Avere  desired  by  the  people,  whatever  might  be  the  abuse  of  it  by 
intemperance,  no  prohibition  could  keep  it  out ;  and  that  as  both  the 
revenue  and  the  morals  of  the  people  would  suffer  by  the  continu 
ance  of  a  contraband  trade,  it  was  desirable  to  make  the  trade  legi 
timate,  and  tax  the  importation  of  the  article.  But  Tchu-Sung 
appeared  to  be  one  of  that  class  of  statesmen,  who,  when  they 
found  that  the  laAvs  were  rendered  nugatory,  and  that  it  Avas 
impossible  to  carry  them  into  execution  by  altering  their  machi 
nery,  and  by  opposing  public  feeling,  made  them  more  stringent. 


WAR     WITH     CHINA.  363 

Tchu-Sung  informed  the  Emperor  that  he  had  discovered  in  the 
course  of  his  ministerial  studies  that  the  mode  in  which  Europe 
had  established  her  empire  in  several  parts  of  Asia  was,  by  the 
introduction  of  opium,  which  so  weakened  the  intellect  and  ener 
vated  the  bodies  of  the  inhabitants,  that  they  were  easily  pounced 
upon  and  made  prisoners  of  by  the  Europeans.  The  opinion  that 
the  trade  would  be  legalized  was  entertained  by  Captain  Elliott, 
and  he  could  himself  vouch  for  the  fact,  that  the  mercantile  com 
munity  of  Calcutta,  during  a  part  of  the  year  1837,  decidedly 
believed  that  notification  of  the  authorisation  of  the  traffic  by  the 
Chinese  government  might  be  expected  from  day  to  day.  It  was 
not  until  the  month  of  May,  1838,  that  a  despatch  arrived  at  the 
Foreign  office,  interfering  with,  or  putting  an  end  to  that  expecta 
tion.  That  being  the  case,  it  was  not  strange  that  his  noble  Friend, 
the  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs,  should  have  hesitated  to  send 
out  an  order  to  put  down  a  trade  which  he  had  every  reason  to 
believe  would  have  been  made  legitimate  before  such  order  could 
have  reached  the  Chinese  seas.  But  he  (Mr.  Macaulay)  did  not 
think  it  would  have  been  at  all  desirable  or  right  that  such  an 
order  should  have  been  sent  out  even  in  1838.  He  thought  that 
that  House  would  have  required  of  the  Government  a  very  clear 
account  indeed,  a  very  strong  proof  of  the  necessity  or  policy  of 
f;uch  order,  and  that  if  they  could  not  have  furnished  that  proof 
the  House  would  have  been  justified  in  calling  them  to  a  sharp 
reckoning  for  sending  out  powers  to  the  Superintendent  authorising 
him  to  seize  and  send  home  any  British  subject  who  should  have  been 
found  carrying  on  a  trade  which  that  superintendent  might  have  pro 
hibited.  Without  meaning  to  deny  that  there  were  extreme  cases 
which  authorised  extreme  powers,  he  must  say,  that  he  conceived 
such  powers  as  these  were  not  to  be  lightly  granted  by  any  British 
Minister.  He  certainly  should  be  convinced,  before  he  agreed  to  a 
vote  of  censure  upon  any  Government  for  not  granting  them, 
that,  in  the  first  place,  there  were  grounds  for  supposing  them  to 


364  WAR     WITH     CHINA. 

have  been  absolutely  necessary ;  and  in  the  next,  that  their  having 
been  withheld  was  the  cause  of  the  unfortunate  circumstances  in 
which  we  were  now  placed  with  regard  to  China.  He,  however, 
felt  satisfied,  that  whether  their  powers  had  been  granted  or  with 
held,  those  unfortunate  circumstances  would  have  taken  place : 
nay  more,  he  ventured  to  say,  that  if  those  powers  had  been 
granted  we  should  now  find  ourselves  involved  in  hostilities  with 
China  under  circumstances  of  peculiar  calamity  and  national  dis 
honour.  With  regard  to  the  practicability  of  carrying  the  order, 
if  it  had  been  given,  into  effect,  he  must  say,  that  it  would  have 
been  impossible  to  put  down  the  trade,  except  by  the  exertions  of 
the  Chinese  themselves.  The  right  hon.  Baronet  was  far  too  expe 
rienced  a  member  of  the  Government  to  suppose  that,  to  suppress 
a  lucrative  trade,  it  was  only  necessary  to  issue  a  written  edict.  In 
England  we  had  a  preventive  service,  which  cost  half  a  million 
of  money,  which  employed  6,000  effective  men,  and  upwards  of 
fifty  cruisers,  and  yet  every  one  knew  well  that  every  article  which 
was  reasonably  portable,  which  was  much  desired,  and  on  which 
severe  duties  were  imposed,  was  smuggled  to  a  very  great  extent.  It 
was  known  that  the  amount  of  brandy  smuggled  had  been  ordinarily. 
600,000  gallons  every  year,  and  of  tobacco  an  amount  not  much  less 
than  the  whole  quantity  regularly  imported  through  the  Custom 
house,  was  conveyed  into  the  country  by  clandestine  means.  It 
has  been  proved,  also,  before  a  Committee  of  the  House  that 
no  less  than  4,000,000lbs.  of  tobacco  had  been  smuggled  into  Ire 
land  in  opposition  to  the  most  effective  preventive  laws  which 
existed  in  the  world.  Knowing  this — knowing  that  the  whole 
power  of  King,  Lords,  and  Commons  could  not  put  an  end  to  a 
lucrative  traffic ;  could  the  House  believe  that  a  mere  order  could 
put  a  stop  to  the  trade  in  opium  ?  Did  they  suppose  that  a  traffic 
supported  on  the  one  hand  by  men  actuated  by  the  love  of  a  drug, 
from  the  intoxicating  qualities  of  which  they  found  it  impossible 
to  restrain  themselves ;  and  on  the  other,  by  persons  actuated  by 


WAR     WITH     CHINA.  365 

the  desire  of  gain,  could  be  terminated  by  the  publication  of  a 
piece  of  paper  signed  "  Charles  Elliott."  There  never  was  a 
stronger  proof  of  the  impotence  of  Chinese  power  to  keep  out  an 
article  of  traffic  than  that  afforded  by  the  year  1839.  If  the  trade 
could  have  been  stopped  by  them,  it  was  impossible  to  suppose  that 
Mr.  Commissioner  Lin  would  have  caused  the  seizure  of  certain  indi 
viduals,  against  some  of  whom  there  existed  mere  suspicion,  whilst 
against  others  there  was  no  hesitation  in  supposing  that  there  was 
not  the  slightest  ground  for  believing  them  implicated  in  the  traffic 
which  had  been  carried  on.  Could  it  be  supposed  even  that  if  the 
orders  of  Elliott  had  failed,  the  preventive  service  of  China,  had 
it  been  as  effectual  and  as  trustworthy  as  our  own,  would  have 
been  able  to  overcome  the  affection  of  the  opium-eater  for  the  drug 
upon  which  he  feasted,  or  the  longing  of  the  merchant  for  the 
profit  which  he  obtained  ?  If  it  could  not  be  supposed  to  produce 
so  good  a  result,  he  would  ask  whether  it  were  to  be  considered 
that  it  would  produce  no  effect  at  all  ?  He  believed  that  it  would, 
and  that  the  effect  would  have  been  this — that  it  would  have 
driven  the  opium  trade  from  Canton ;  but  would  have  spread  it 
throughout  the  coast  of  the  whole  country.  The  traffic  would  not 
have  been  carried  on,  indeed,  any  longer  under  the  very  eye  of  the 
commissioner,  or  in  such  a  manner  as  that  the  traders  might  after 
wards  be  called  upon  to  answer  for  their  offences  in  some  English 
court,  but  they  would  remove  from  Canton,  where  an  English 
society  being  collected,  their  proceedings  would  be  watched  with 
unremitting  jealousy,  but  they  would  have  found  that  the  lawless 
trade  would  have  been  carried  on  all  along  the  coast,  by  means 
infinitely  more  lawless  than  those  which  had  been  already  adopted. 
The  traders  would  have  gone  to  a  distance  from  the  great  port, 
the  whole  east  coast  would  have  been  covered  with  smugglers,  and 
in  their  efforts  to  secure  the  object  which  they  had  in  view,  they 
would  have  undoubtedly  come  in  contact  with  the  local  authori 
ties,  who  would  be  unaccustomed  to  deal  with  European  traders ; 


366  WAR     WITH     CHIXA. 

the  mala  prohibita  of  a  contraband  traffic  would  be  converted  into 
the  mala  per  se,  and  smuggling  would  be  turned  into  piracy, 
a  crime  of  a  much  more  heinous  description.  If  under  the  eye  of 
an  English  society — consisting  certainly  of  persons,  some  of  whom 
were  suspected  of  being  concerned  in  the  trade,  but  many  of  whom 
were  of  the  highest  respectability — the  traffic  could  not  long  be 
carried  on  without  producing  acts  having  some  appearance  of 
piracy,  what  could  they  expect  when  no  man  would  have  any 
judge  of  his  own  conduct  but  himself?  It  would  be  found  that 
men  being  congregated  in  vessels  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on 
the  trade,  would  land  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  fresh  supplies 
of  provisions ;  that  their  demands  would  be  refused ;  that  they 
would  attempt  to  seize  them  ;  wells  would  be  poisoned,  or  four  or 
five  sailors,  perhaps,  going  to  fill  their  water  casks,  would  be  cap 
tured,  and  that  the  demand  for  their  liberation  not  being  complied 
with,  their  comrades  would  proceed  to  burn  and  sack  the  neigh 
bouring  village.  Similar  circumstances  had  occurred  in  former 
instances,  and  he  saw  no  reason  why,  at  the  present  time,  scenes 
of  equal  atrocity  should  not  occur.  He  believed,  therefore,  that 
if  .the  smuggling  trade  had  been  removed  from  Macao,  and  scat 
tered  along  the  coast  in  the  manner  which  he  had  described,  hos 
tilities  with  China  would  have  been  the  speedy  and  the  inevitable 
consequence.  What  did  they  see  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
Chinese  government,  or  of  Mr.  Commissioner  Lin,  to  induce  them 
to  suppose  that  those  hostilities  would  not  have  taken  place? 
Commissioner  Lin  had  not  hesitated  to  inflict  severe  punishment 
upon  men  whose  characters  were  totally  unsuspected,  and  was  it 
likely,  that  if  the  events  which  he  had  endeavoured  to  describe, 
had  occurred  along  the  coast  of  China,  Lin  would  have  been 
more  scrupulous  ?  Would  he  not  have  published  some  procla 
mation,  setting  forth,  that  Captain  Elliott  had  undertaken  to  put 
a  stop  to  the  contraband  trade,  but  that  he  had  deceived  him ; 
that  he  had  pretended  to  command  the  discontinuance  of  the 


WAR     WITH     CHINA.  367 

traffic,  but  that  lie  had  issued  false  edicts — for  that  it  had  been 
carried  on  along  the  whole  coast,  to  an  extent  even  greater  than 
that  to  which  it  had  before  gone,  and  that  therefore  he  would 
hold  all  Englishmen,  who  ought  to  have  had  the  power  to  prevent 
all  this,  whether  blameable  or  not  blameable,  as  hostages,  until 
the  wrong  which  had  been  committed  should  have  been  remedied. 
That  would  have  been  the  spirit  of  Mr.  Commissioner  Lin ;  and 
therefore  he  said  that,  so  far  as  he  had  been  able  to  form  a  judg 
ment,  he  believed  that  the  positive  prohibition  of  the  opium  trade 
by  Captain  Elliott,  unsupported  by  physical  force,  would  have 
been  inadequate  to  put  the  trade  down.  Did  the  right  hon. 
Baronet  mean,  that  this  country  should  pay  the  expense  of  a 
preventive  service  for  the  whole  coast  of  China  ?  He  knew  that 
it  was  impossible  that  he,  or  any  one  else,  could  for  one  moment 
advocate  a  doctrine  so  absurd ;  and  he  could  not  but  repeat  his 
firm  belief,  that  by  any  course  but  that  which  had  been  adopted, 
the  existing  evils  would  only  have  been  aggravated,  and  the 
rupture  which  had  taken  place  would  have  been  brought  about  in 
a  manner  still  more  calamitous,  and  still  more  dreadful.  He  had 
now  gone,  he  thought,  through  the  four  charges  on  which  the 
right  hon.  Baronet  rested  his  case ;  and  he  declared  most  solemnly, 
that  it  did  not  appear  to  him  that,  according  to  the  terms  of  the 
motion  which  was  before  the  House,  to  any  one  of  the  four 
omissions  which  were  alleged  to  have  been  made,  was  to  be  attri 
buted  that  interruption  of  our  friendly  relations  which  was  so 
deeply  and  so  universally  deplored.  If  he  could  believe  that  hon. 
Gentlemen  would  vote,  keeping  in  mind  really  what  the  proposi 
tion  was,  he  should  not  have  the  smallest  hesitation  as  to  the 
result ;  but  he  could  not  refrain  from  saying,  that  some  persons, 
for  whose  feelings  of  humanity  he  entertained  the  highest  respect, 
might  possibly  imagine,  that  in  giving  their  assent  to  the  motion, 
they  were  marking  their  disapprobation  of  the  trade,  which  he 
regretted  as  deeply  as  they  did.  They  had  seen  it  asserted  over 


368  WAR     WITH     CHINA. 

and  over  again,  that  the  Government  was  advocating  the  cause  of 
the  contraband  trade,  in  order  to  force  an  opium  war  on  the 
public  ;  but  he  thought  that  it  was  impossible  to  be  conceived  that 
a  thought  so  absurd  and  so  atrocious  should  have  ever  entered  the 
minds  of  the  British  Ministry.  Their  course  was  clear.  They 
might  dowbt  whether  it  were  wise  for  the  government  of  China  to 
exclude  from  that  country  a  drug  which,  if  judiciously  adminis 
tered,  was  powerful  in  assuaging  pain,  and  in  promoting  health, 
because  it  was  occasionally  used  to  excess  by  intemperate  men — 
they  might  doubt  whether  it  was  wise  policy  on  the  part  of  that 
Government  to  attempt  to  stop  the  efflux  of  precious  metals  from 
the  country  in  the  due  course  of  trade.  They  learned  from  his 
tory — and  almost  every  country  afforded  proof,  which  was  strength 
ened  by  existing  circumstances  in  England,  to  which  he  had  already 
alluded — that  no  machinery,  however  powerful,  had  been  sufficient 
to  keep  out  of  any  country  those  luxuries  which  the  people  enjoyed, 
or  were  able  to  purchase,  or  to  prevent  the  efflux  of  precious 
metals,  when  it  was  demanded  by  the  course  of  trade.  What 
Great  Britain  could  not  effect  with  the  finest  marine,  and  the  most 
trustworthy  preventive  service  in  the  world,  was  not  likely  to  be 
effected  by  the  feeble  efforts  of  the  mandarins  of  China.  But, 
whatever  their  opinions  on  these  points  might  be,  the  Governor  of 
China  alone,  it  must  be  remembered,  was  competent  to  decide ; 
that  government  had  a  right  to  keep  out  opium,  to  keep  in  silver, 
and  to  enforce  their  prohibitory  laws,  by  whatever  means  which 
they  might  possess,  consistently  with  the  principles  of  public  mora 
lity,  and  of  international  law;  and  if,  after  having  given  fair 
notice  of  their  intention  to  seize  all  contraband  goods  introduced 
into  their  dominions,  they  seized  our  opium,  we  had  no  right  to 
complain ;  but  when  the  government,  finding,  that  by  just  and 
lawful  means,  they  could  not  carry  out  their  prohibition,  resorted 
to  measures  unjust  and  unlawful,  confined  our  innocent  country 
men,  and  insulted  the  Sovereign  in  the  person  of  her  representa- 


WAR     WITH     CHINA.  369 

live,  then  he  thought,  the  time  had  arrived  when  it  was  fit  that 
\ve  should  interfere.  Whether  the  proceedings  of  the  Chinese 
were  or  were  not  founded  on  humanity,  was  not  now  to  be  decided. 
Let  them  take  the  case  of  the  most  execrable  crime  that  had  ever 
been  dignified  by  the  name  of  a  trade- — the  African  slave  trade. 
The  prosecution  of  that  trade  was  made  a  misdemeanour,  a  felony, 
and  finally  piracy.  We  made  treaties  with  foreign  powers  and  paid 
large  sums  of  money  to  secure  the  object  which  we  had  in  view  ; 
and  yet  it  was  perfectly  notorious,  that  notwithstanding  all  the 
efforts  which  we  had  made,  slaves  had  been  introduced  from  Africa 
into  our  colony  of  the  Mauritius.  Undoubtedly  it  was  our  duty  to 
put  down  the  traffic  which  had  so  long  been  carried  on  with 
rigour,  and  to  bring  all  persons  engaged  in  it  to  punishment;  but 
suppose  a  ship  under  French  colours  was  seen  skulking  under  the 
coast  of  the  island,  and  that  the  Governor  had  his  eye  upon  it, 
and  was  satisfied  that  it  was  a  slaver,  and  that  it  was  waiting  for 
an  opportunity  by  night  to  run  its  cargo  ;  suppose  the  Governor, 
not  having  a  sufficient  naval  force  to  seize  the  vessel,  should  send 
and  take  thirty  or  forty  French  gentlemen  resident  in  the  island, 
some  of  them,  perhaps,  suspected  of  having  been  engaged  in  the 
trade,  and  some  who  had  never  fallen  under  any  suspicion,  and 
lock  them  up.  Suppose  amongst  others,  he  had  laid  violent 
hands  on  the  Consul  of  France,  saying  that  they  should  have  no 
food  till  they  produced  the  proprietor  of  the  vessel,  would  not  the 
French  government  be  in  a  condition  to  claim  reparation,  and,  if 
so,  would  not  the  French  government  have  a  right  to  exact  repa 
ration  if  refused  by  arms  ?  Would  it  be  enough  for  us  to  say, 
"  Oh,  but  it  is  such  a  wicked  trade,  such  a  monstrous  trade,  that 
you  have  no  right  to  quarrel  with  us  for  resorting  to  any  means 
to  put  it  down  ?"  The  answer  would  be,  "  Are  you  not  trampling 
upon  a  great  principle  by  doing  so  ?"  If  such  would  be  the  answer 
of  France,  was  it  not  fit  and  right  that  her  Majesty  should  demand 

reparation  from  China  ?     They  had   seen  the  success  of  the  first 

16* 


370  WAR     WITH     CHINA. 

great  act  of  injustice  perpetrated  by  that  government  produce  its 
natural  effect  on  a  people  ignorant  of  the  relative  places  they  and 
we  held  in  the  scale  of  nations.  The  Imperial  Commissioner 
began  by  confiscating  property ;  his  next  demand  was  for  innocent 
blood.  A  Chinese  was  slain ;  the  most  careful  inquiry  had  been 
made,  but  was  insufficient  to  discover  the  slayer,  or  even  the 
nation  to  which  he  belonged  ;  but  it  was  caused  to  be  notified  that, 
guilty  or  not,  some  subject  of  the  Queen's  must  be  given  up. 
Great  Britain  gave  an  unequivocal  refusal  to  be  a  party  to  so  bar 
barous  a  proceeding.  The  people  at  Canton  were  seized ;  they 
were  driven  from  Macao,  suspected  or  not.  Women  with  child, 
children  at  the  breast,  were  treated  with  equal  severity,  were 
refused  bread,  or  the  means  of  subsistence ;  the  innocent  Lascars 
were  thrown  into  the  sea ;  an  English  gentleman  was  barbarously 
mutilated,  and  England  found  itself  at  once  assailed  with  a  fury 
unknown  to  civilized  countries.  The  place  of  this  country  among 
nations  was  not  so  mean  or  ill  ascertained  that  we  should  trouble 
ourselves  to  resist  every  petty  slight  which  we  might  receive.  Con 
scious  of  her  power,  England  could  bear  that  her  Sovereign  should 
*be  called  a  barbarian,  and  her  people  described  as  savages,  desti 
tute  of  every  useful  art.  When  our  Ambassadors  were  obliged  to 
undergo  a  degrading  prostration,  in  compliance  with  their  regula 
tions,  conscious  of  our  strength,  we  were  more  amused  than  irri 
tated.  But  there  was  a  limit  to  that  forbearance.  It  would  not 
have  been  worthy  of  us  to  take  arms  upon  a  small  provocation, 
referring  to  rites  and  ceremonies  merely  ;  but  every  one  in  the  scale 
of  civilized  nations  should  know  that  Englishmen  were  ever  living 
under  the  protecting  eye  of  their  own  country.  He  was  much 
touched,  and  he  thought  that  probably  many  others  were  so  also, 
by  one  passage  contained  in  the  dispatch  of  Captain  Elliott,  in 
which  he  communicated  his  arrival  at  the  factory  at  Canton. 
The  moment  at  which  he  landed  he  was  surrounded  by  his  coun 
trymen  in  an  agony  of  despair  at  their  situation,  but  the  first  step 


WAR     WITH     CHINA.  371 

which  he  took  was  to  order  the  flag  of  Great  Britain  to  be  taken 
from  the  boat  and  to  be  planted  in  the  balcony.  This  was  an  act 
which  revived  the  drooping  hopes  of  those  who  looked  to  him  for 
protection.  It  was  natural  that  they  should  look  with  confidence 
on  the  victorious  flag  which  was  hoisted  over  them,  which  reminded 
them  that  they  belonged  to  a  country  unaccustomed  to  defeat,  to 
submission,  or  to  shame — it  reminded  them  that  they  belonged  to 
a  country  which  had  made  the  farthest  ends  of  the  earth  ring 
with  the  fame  of  her  exploits  in  redressing  the  wrongs  of  her  chil 
dren  ;  that  made  the  Dey  of  Algiers  humble  himself  to  the  insulted 
consul ;  that  revenged  the  horrors  of  the  black  hole  on  the  fields 
of  Plessey ;  that  had  not  degenerated  since  her  great  Protector 
vowed  that  he  would  make  the  name  of  Englishman  as  respected 
as  ever  had  been  the  name  of  Roman  citizen.  They  felt  that 
although  far  from  their  native  country,  and  then  in  danger  in  a 
part  of  the  world  remote  from  that  to  which  they  must  look  for 
protection,  yet  that  they  belonged  to  a  state  which  would  not 
suffer  a  hair  of  one  of  its  members  to  be  harmed  with  impunity. 
All  were  agreed  upon  this  point  of  the  question.  He  had  listened 
with  painful  attention  to  the  speech  of  the  right  hon.  Baronet,  bu*. 
he  had  not  detected  in  it  one  word  which  implied  that  he  was  not 
disposed  to  insist  on  a  just  reparation  for  the  offence  which  had 
been  committed  against  us.  With  respect  to  the  present  motion, 
whatever  its  result  might  be,  he  could  not  believe  that  the  House 
would  agree  to  a  vote  of  censure  so  gross,  so  palpable,  or  so  unjust 
as  that  which  was  conveyed  in  its  terms ;  and  he  trusted  that  even 
if  there  was  to  be  a  change  of  men  consequential  upon  the  conclu 
sion  of  the  debate,  there  would  at  all  events  be  no  change  of  mea 
sures.  He  had  endeavoured  to  express  his  views  and  his  opinions 
upon  this  subject,  and  he  begged  in  conclusion  to  declare  his  earnest 
desire  that  this  most  rightful  caarrel  might  be  prosecuted  to  a 
triumphal  close — that  the  brave  men  to  whom  was  entrusted  the 
task  of  demanding  that  reparation  which  the  circumstances  of  the 


372  WAR    WITH     CHINA. 

•case  required,  might  fulfil  their  duties  with  moderation,  but  with 
success — that  the  name,  not  only  of  English  valour,  but  of  English 
mercy,  might  be  established ;  and  that  the  overseeing  care  of  that 
gracious  Providence  which  had  so  often  brought  good  out  of  evil, 
might  make  the  crime  which  had  forced  us  to  take  those  measures 
which  had  been  adopted  the  means  of  promoting  an  everlasting 
peace,  alike  beneficial  to  England  and  to  China. 


373 


COLONIAL  PASSENGERS'  BILL.* 
JUNE  4,  1840. 

HE  entertained  so  high  a  respect  for  his  right  hon.  and  learned 
friend  [Sir  S.  Lushington],  and  knew  so  well  the  services  he  had 
rendered  to  the  cause  of  freedom,  that  he  felt  much  pain  in  differ 
ing  from  him.  But  after  the  speech  they  had  just  heard,  he  was 
unwilling  to  give  his  vote  without  stating  the  grounds  of  it.  He 
believed,  that  with  respect  to  the  general  principle  there  was  little 
difference  between  his  right  hon.  friend  and  himself.  None  knew 
better  than  his  right  hon.  friend  how  important  it  was  to  remove 
labourers  from  districts  where  the  population  was  thick  and  wages 
were  low,  to  districts  where  the  land  was  widely  spread,  and  labour  in 
demand.  He  would  admit,  there  might  be  exceptions — he  thought, 
that  wheresoever  slavery  existed  there  ought  to  be  restrictions 
placed  upon  immigration  ]  he  was  also  of  opinion,  that  while 
slavery  existed  in  the  West  Indies,  it  was  in  the  highest  degree 
pernicious  to  the  labouring  population  to  permit  the  emigration 
from  parts  where  the  demand  for  labour  was  small  to  those  where 
it  was  great.  And  he  considered,  that  the  system  of  slavery, 
separating,  as  it  did  altogether,  the  interest  of  the  capitalist  from 
that  of  the  labourer,  depriving  the  latter  of  the  fair  advantage, 
which  in  a  free  condition  he  had  a  right  to  expect  from  the  fertile 
soil,  and  a  great  demand  for  his  labour,  rendered  it  necessary  to 
impose  a  restriction  upon  the  passage  of  the  labourer  from  one 
country  to  another.  But  now,  if  there  was  any  one  part  of  the 
empire  from  which  it  was  desirable  to  encourage  emigration,  it  was 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  liv.  p.  941-944. 


374  COLONIAL      PASSENGERS     BILL. 

India,  and  if  there  was  any  part  to  which  the  tide  should  flow,  it 
was  the  Mauritius.     The  wages  in  the  latter  place  would  be  fifty 
times  what  the  labourer  received  in  his  native  place.     When  he 
considered  the  state  of  the  native  peasantry  of  India,  he  would 
say,  with  every  respect  for  the  sincere  feelings  of  humanity  which 
actuated   those  who  were  opposed  to  the  present  measure,  that 
they  might  be    betrayed  by  those  very  feelings  into  committing 
a  great  wrong  upon  that   unfortunate  population.       He    could 
state  it  as  a  fact,  that  at  the  time  when  the  debates  on  the  subject 
of  these  peasants  were  going  on — while  persons  were  speaking 
with  the  greatest  horror  of  the  new  system  of  slave-trade,  the 
Governor-general  was  obliged  to  turn  out  of  his  road  to  avoid  the 
s:ght  of  these  wretched  peasants  dying  in  the  ditches  from  starva 
tion,  in  consequence  of  low  wages.     He  understood  his  right  hon. 
friend  to  say,  that  as  a  general  principle,  they  ought  not  to  inter 
fere  with  tho  free  labourers  removing  from  one  part  of  the  country 
to  another,  therefore  it  would  appear  as  if  he  contended,  that  in 
the  present  case,  there  were  circumstances  which  counterbalanced 
the  difference  between  famine  and  plenty,  and  between  two-pence 
a  day  as  wages  and  one  shilling.    "  His  right  hon.  friend  had  spoken 
of  the  disparity  between  the  sexes.     Had  he  heard  the  statement 
of  his  noble  friend,  he  would  have  heard  that  measures  were  in 
view  which  would  remedy  that  great  evil.     His  right  hon.  friend 
had  also  spoken  of  the  artifices,  blameable  in  the  highest  degree, 
practised  by  the  agents  in  the  Mauritius ;  but  had  he  heard  the 
speech  of  his  noble  friend,   he  would  have   discovered   that  no 
agency  would  now  be  permitted,  except  such  as  was  authorized  by 
the  government  in   India  or  the  government  in  the  Mauritius. 
Had  his  right  hon.  friend  heard  the  speech,  he  would  also  have 
discovered  that  it  was  intended  to  limit  the  contracts  entered  into 
to  such  a  degree  that  the  labourers  would  be  at  liberty  to  choose 
their  masters,  and  that  no  contract  was  to  last  for  a  longer  term 
than  twelve  months.     That  was  a  state  of  things  under  which 


COLONIAL     PASSENGERS     BILL.  S7o 

evils  would  arise,  such  as  those  anticipated  by  his  right  hon.  friend. 
With  regard  to  the  point  that  the  language  of  these  people  was 
not  understood  in  the  Mauritius,  his  right  hon.  friend  seemed  to 
have  overlooked  the  fact,  that  in  that  island  were  constantly  to  be 
found  a  considerable  number  of  the  civil  servants  of  the  East 
India  Company,  men  of  high  respectability,  character,  and  attain 
ments.  Those  persons  understood  the  language  of  the  emigrants, 
and  would  naturally  be  disposed  to  feel  a  strong  interest  in  their 
welfare.  That  pircumstance  alone  would  constitute  a  strong  dis 
tinction  between  the  case  of  the  Mauritius  and  of  the  West  Indies, 
which  his  right  hon.  friend  had  paralleled.  With  respect  to  some 
unfortunate  circumstances  in  the  past  history  of  the  Mauritius  he 
would  say,  without  attempting  to  impute  to  his  right  hon.  friend 
any  other  motives  than  those  by  which  he  was  guided,  and  which 
were  the  purest  and  most  humane,  that  both  his  right  hon.  friend, 
and  the  hon.  Member  for  Bridport,  had  insisted  too  much  upon 
that  point.  It  was  worth  while  to  consider  whether  the  last 
slave  trade,  so  long  carried  on  in  the  Mauritius,  were  to  be  attri 
buted  entirely  to  a  lawless  disposition  arid  contempt  for  the  mother 
country,  or  whether  it  were  not  to  be  attributed  to  the  fact  that 
the  Mauritius  was  close  to  the  slave  market,  while  other  colonies 
were  more  distant.  There  were  many  general  local  circumstances 
to  induce  the  belief  that  the  emigrants  would  be  better  off  in  the 
Mauritius,  and  return  to  their  own  country  afterwards  under  better 
circumstances  from  the  Mauritius  than  from  the  West  Indies.  He 
would  say,  then,  looking  at  the  papers,  if  he  were  asked  whether 
the  evils  he  saw  there  were  those  of  the  slave  trade  such  as  existed 
between  Africa  and  the  West  Indies,  or  those  of  the  slave  trade  as 
it  existed  between  this  country  and  the  colonies  on  the  other  side 
of  the  Atlantic,  he  should  say  that  the  evils,  though  great  and  requir 
ing  correction,  certainly  belonged  to  the  latter  class.  He  would 
only  add  that  he  believed  no  persons — or  few  at  least — had  felt 
more  strongly  than  he  had  felt  during  the  contest  that  took  place 


370 

on  the  subject  of  negro  slavery.  He  would  not  say  that  he  did 
not  feel  for  those  persons  who  were  connected  with  colonial  pro 
perty  ;  and  he  declared  that  since  that  time,  so  far  from  regard 
ing  those  proprietors  with  unfriendly  feelings,  there  was  no  interest 
in  the  empire  which  he  was  more  desirous  to  see  in  a  flourish 
ing  and  prosperous  condition,  because  he  believed  that  on  the 
fate  of  the  great  experiment  that  had  been  tried  depended  the 
fate  of  slaves  throughout  the  civilized  world.  If,  twenty  years 
hence,  those  colonies  in  which  slavery  continued,  should  be  able 
to  point  to  those  in  which  it  had  been  abolished,  ruined,  and  the 
plantations  in  them  abandoned,  then  he  would  say  that  although 
we  should  indeed  have  wiped  a  stain  from  our  own  land,  he  ques 
tioned  whether  we  should  have  conferred  a  great  and  signal  boon 
upon  humanity  in  general.  Believing,  then,  that  the  measure  of 
his  noble  friend  would  have  a  tendency  to  promote  the  prosperity 
of  the  colonies  by  means  at  once  just  towards  the  labourer,  and 
compatible  with  his  freedom  and  comfort,  he  should  give  it  his 
most  cordial  support. 


377 


REGISTRATION  OF  VOTERS— IRELAND.* 

JUNE  19,   1840. 

HE  entertained  so  great  a  respect  for  the  eminent  talents  and  legal 
acuteness  of  the  right  hon.  Gentleman  who  had  just  sat  down 
[Sir  E.  Sugden],  that  it  was  with  great  diffidence  he  ventured 
to  oppose  his  opinion  to  that  of  the  right  hon.  and  learned 
Gentleman  on  the  construction  of  a  single  clause.  But  when  the 
right  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman  had  emphatically,  distinctly,  and 
repeatedly  assured  the  Committee  that  the  question  on  which  they 
were  to  divide  was,  whether  a  person  now  on  the  register  was  to 
remain  on  it  all  his  life,  he  (Mr.  Macaulay)  could  not  but  say  that 
it  appeared  to  him  that  the  words  of  his  noble  Friend's  amend 
ment  by  no  means  bore  out  such  a  statement.  His  reading  of  the 
words  was,  that  the  voter  should  be  continued  on  the  register  so 
long  as  his  right  of  voting  and  the  registry  were  to  remain  in 
force,  which  under  the  present  law  were  not  for  the  term  of  his 
life,  but  for  the  period  of  eight  years.  If  he  was  correct  in  con 
ceiving  that  the  right  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman  had  thus,  from 
reading  it  but  cursorily,  mistaken  his  noble  Friend's  amendment, 
he  might  well  suppose  that  the  right  hon.  and  learned  Gentleman 
had  not  been  altogether  correct  in  his  other  remarks.  He  utterly 
denied,  that  the  smallest  imputation  of  unfairness,  of  violation  of 
Parliamentary  rule,  or  of  want  of  perfect  candour,  could  be 
brought  against  his  noble  Friend.  The  question  which  his  noble 
Friend  had  brought  forward  was  one  of  the  gravest  importance  ; 
it  was  the  question  of  re-investigation  or  no  re-investigation,  and 

*  Hansard,  3d  Series,  vol.  liv.  p.  1349-1357. 


378  REGISTRATION     OF     VOTERS IRELAND. 

was  one  which  the  Committee  would  repeatedly  have  to  decide  on 
during  the  progress  of  the  bill.  It  wras  a  question  which  it  was 
possible  for  any  Member  of  that  House,  without  the  slightest 
infringement  of  Parliamentary  rule,  to  bring  forward  on  the  dis 
cussion  of  any  clause  in  which  it  could  with  propriety  be  inserted. 
Considering  the  history  of  the  noble  Lord's  bill — considering  that  on 
the  question  of  going  into  Committee  the  noble  Lord  had  a  majority 
of  but  three,  and  that  of  that  majority  two  hon.  Members  declared 
themselves  unfavourable  to  the  principle  of  re-investigation,  two 
used  language  such  as  gave  the  House  to  understand  that  should 
the  bill  come  to  a  third  reading,  still  containing  that  principle,  they 
would  vote  against  it — he  thought  his  noble  Friend  was  justified 
on  the  first  occasion  which  presented  itself  in  taking  the  opinion 
of  the  Committee  on  the  great  question  of  whether  re-investigation 
was  to  remain  the  prominent  defect  of  the  bill  ?  Although  it  was 
the  intention  of  Government  to  go  fully  and  fairly  into  the  Com 
mittee  on  the  bill,  he  entertained  no  expectation  of  any  good 
result.  He  did  not  hope  that  any  good  measure  could  be  made 
out  of  one  so  laboriously,  so  elaborately,  bad  as  that  of  the  noble 
Lord  ;  but  if  any  effectual  alteration  could  be  made,  it  must  bo 
made  by  a  series  of  amendments  like  the  present.  By  such  altera 
tions  the  bill  might,  perhaps,  leave  the  Committee  what  it  purported 
to  be,  a  bill  to  amend  the  Registration.  At  present  he  coulc1 
designate  it  by  no  other  name  than  a  bill  to  take  away  the  right 
of  voting  under  the  pretence  of  ascertaining  it.  He  need  hardly 
say,  that  it  was  to  no  purpose  that  the  bill  did  not  directly  affec- 
the  right  of  voting,  because  there  was  no  right  which  could  not  be 
annulled  by  indirect  as  well  as  by  direct  means,  or  by  providing  a 
tedious,  troublesome,  and  costly  mode  of  obtaining  it.  That  was 
seen  in  all  questions  relating  to  the  rights  of  property.  It  was  to 
no  purpose,  by  the  substantive  law  of  the  land,  particular  estates 
or  sums  of  money  belonged  to  a  certain  person,  if  that  law  were 
so  expensive  as  only  to  obtain  his  right  at  a  greater  expense  than 


REGISTRATION     OF     VOTERS — IRELAND.  379 

the  object  was  worth.  There  was  not  an  lion.  Member  in  that 
House  who  had  not  at  some  time  or  other  submitted  to  an  unjust 
demand  rather  than  run  the  risk  of  vexatious  proceedings.  If  a 
law  were  brought  into  that  House  for  the  purpose  of  making  jus 
tice  expensive,  he  should  be  justified  in  calling  it  a  law  of  spoliation, 
and  so  he  thought  he  was  justified  in  designating  a  bill  the  object 
of  which  was  disfranchisement  under  the  name  of  registration. 
At  the  same  time  he  had  not  the  smallest  doubt  but  that  the  bill 
of  the  noble  Lord  would  remove  some  persons  from  the  register 
who  had  not  the  smallest  right  to  be  there,  in  the  same  way  as  if 
they  made  a  law  making  the  Court  of  Requests  as  expensive  as 
the  House  of  Lords.  Many  a  groundless  action  would  be  driven 
out  of  it,  but  the  question  was,  whether  they  would  not  be  throw 
ing  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  just  as  well  as  of  the  unjust 
claimant.  Let  the  noble  Lord  satisfy  him  that  the  impediments 
provided  by  this  bill  would  lie  only  in  the  way  of  fraudulent 
claimants,  and  he  would  give  him  his  support.  But  he  saw  no 
provision  to  that  effect  in  the  bill.  He  saw  that  it  went  to  make 
registration  costly  and  difficult  both  for  the  fraudulent  and  the 
just  claimant,  and  it  was  on  the  distinction  between  the  two  that 
the  sense  of  the  Committee  would  be  taken.  It  provided  repeated 
hearings  of  the  same  question — first  before  a  subordinate,  and  then 
before  an  appellate  tribunal.  He  would  beg  of  the  committee 
to  consider  to  what  extent  that  abuse  might  be  carried  under  the 
bill.  Even  the  legal  knowledge  of  the  right  hon.  and  learned 
Gentleman  would  not  enable  him  to  find  a  parallel  in  any  law, 
British  or  foreign,  ancient  or  modern.  It  would  not  be  necessary 
to  select  as  matter  of  objection  some  point  which  had  not  been 
investigated  before,  for  one  and  the  same  objection  might  be  raised 
every  time  a  new  assistant  barrister  came  to  the  country,  or  as 
often  as  a  new  judge  went  the  circuit.  If  he  rightly  understood 
the  noble  Lord's  bill,  an  objection  might  be  made  in  1840  before 
the  assistant  barrister,  from  that  there  might  be  made  an  appeal  to 


880  REGISTRATION     OF     VOTERS IRELAND. 

the  Court  of  Queen's  Bench  ;  in  1841  it  might  be  again  brought 
before  the  assistant-barrister,  and  from  him  to  the  Court  of  Com 
mon  Pleas  ;  in  1842  it  might  again  come  before  the  assistant- 
barrister,  and  then  there  was  an  appeal  to  the  Court  of  Exchequer. 
Nay,  further,  should  there  be  a  new  Chief  Justice,  it  might  be  tried 
another  year  in  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  Now,  he  would 
venture  to  ask  if  the  whole  jurisprudence  of  the  world  contained 
anything  which  afforded  a  parallel  to  such  a  system  of  legislation  ? 
He  would  venture  to  assert  that  there  was  no  parallel,  because, 
although  there  was  something  like  it  in  the  English  system — 
and  it  was  the  vice  of  the  system — yet  there  was  only  one  trial,  but 
in  any  other  respect  he  defied  the  noble  Lord  to  find  a  parallel  in 
any  country  that  ever  called  itself  civilized.  The  noble  Lord  said,  if 
that  power  of  objection  was  not  given,  persons  would  get  upon  the 
registry  who  had  no  legal  right  to  be  there.  Did  the  noble  Lord 
imagine  that  there  were  no  persons  in  possession  of  property  in 
this  country  the  judgments  in  whose  favour  were  by  no  means 
justified  ?  Did  the  noble  Lord  imagine  that  all  the  damages 
awarded  to  plaintiffs  by  juries,  and  that  all  the  large  sums  which 
had  been  paid  by  the  Courts  of  Law,  were  sanctioned  by  truth 
and  justice  ?  Did  he  not  believe  that  there  were  many  estates 
which  were  in  the  possession  of  wrong  owners  ?  But  the  Courts 
of  Law  could  not  and  ought  not  to  set  these  matters  right  by 
eternal  re-investigation.  Suppose  an  injured  man  had  come  and 
said  that  the  judgment  obtained  against  him  was  erroneous — that 
he  had  procured  the  evidence — that  he  had  found  in  the  bottom 
of  a  chest  an  old  paper  which  would  establish  his  claim — that  he 
had  been  taken  by  surprise  ;  the  court  might  naturally  say,  that 
they  regretted  the  hardship  of  the  case,  but  it  would  be  impossible 
for  them  to  go  on  hearing  and  re-hearing  the  case  twenty  or  thirty 
or  fifty  times  ;  that  the  noble  Lord's  bill  admitted,  and  it  required 
no  great  stretch  of  imagination  to  suppose  a  case  in  which  the 
voter  might  be  objected  to  120  or  130  times  in  the  course  of  his 


REGISTRATION     OF     VOTERS IRELAND.  381 

life.  He  had  not  the  smallest  doubt  that  if  they  went  on  hearing 
criminal  cases  over  and  over  again,  they  would  at  length  hang 
some  great  ruffians.  He  had  no  doubt  that  if  a  man  brought  an 
action  over  again  for  the  same  cause,  some  cases  of  importance 
might  be  set  right ;  but  it  had  been  ruled  over  and  over  again 
that  it  was  better  occasionally  that  some  wrong  should  be  endured 
than  that  the  rights  of  society  should  be  constantly  interfered  with  ; 
and  why  should  they  depart  from  that  principle  in  the  single  case 
of  the  franchise  ?  No  doubt  the  bill  would  exclude  many  dis 
honest  voters,  but  the  question  was,  what  would  be  its  effect  on 
the  honest  voter  ?  All  the  objections  in  the  bill  were  common  to 
the  rightful  and  the  wrongful  claimant.  The  vexation  and  expense 
of  travelling,  of  appearing  before  the  judge,  of  severe  cross- 
examinations,  of  brow-beatings,  and  reflections  upon  his  integrity, 
were  all  common  to  the  rightful  as  well  as  the  wrongful  claimant. 
But  did  the  noble  Lord  believe  that  a  case  never  broke  down  unless 
when  a  man  went  with  a  fraudulent  intention  ?  Did  he  not  know 
that  the  accidental  absence  of  a  witness,  or  direct  perjury — (for 
if  the  noble  Lord  imputed  so  much  on  the  side  of  the  claimant, 
surely  he  might  allow  a  little  on  the  side  of  the  objectors) — would 
break  down  the  claim  ?  Was  he  not  aware  that  men,  who  thought 
they  had  a  good  right,  were  frequently  withheld  from  pressing  it 
in  a  court  of  law,  because  they  were  in  doubt  whether  they  could 
establish  it  satisfactorily ;  or  had  the  noble  Lord  never  heard  of 
the  uncertainty  of  the  law  ?  If  out  of  one  hundred  honest 
claimants  only  four  or  five  were  defeated,  or  saddled  with  costs, 
could  any  one  doubt  that  that  would  act  to  the  injury  of  the 
honest  claimant  ?  Almost  every  clause  of  the  noble  Lord's  bill 
for  keeping  out  the  wrongful,  acted  just  as  effectually  against  the 
rightful  claimant.  The  noble  Lord  had  drawn  a  pretty  picture  of 
an  unfortunate  claimant  being  opposed  by  a  pauper ;  but  the 
noble  Lord  should  recollect  that  property  was  the  best  of  qualifi 
cations — that  the  claim  of  the  rich  man  must  be  a  valid  one,  and 


382  REGISTRATION     OF     VOTERS IRELAND. 

that  it  was  much  more  likely  that  the  case  might  be  reversed. 
He  would  suppose  another  case,  the  case  of  a  man  of  great  wealth, 
and  of  imperious,  obstinate,  and  arbitrary  temper — one  of  those 
men,  who,  as  had  been  said  by  his  lamented  and  valued  friend,  in 
words  which  should  be  engraven  on  his  tomb,  thought  much  of 
the  rights  of  property,  and  little  of  its  duties.  He  would  suppose 
that  man  willing  to  spend  £6,000  or  £7,000  a  year  in  securing  the 
command  of  a  county;  that,  every  man  knew,  would  not  be 
impossible  even  in  England.  He  would  not  mention  any  recent 
transaction  ;  he  did  not  wish  to  mix  up  personalities  with  that 
serious  debate  ;  but  they  all  knew  that  a  certain  man  now  dead, 
provoked  by  the  opposition  he  received  in  a  certain  town,  vowed 
that  he  would  make  the  grass  grow  in  its  streets,  and  he  kept  his 
vow.  Another  ejected  400  voters  in  one  county,  and  entered  15 
criminal  and  225  civil  actions.  Such  a  man  could  easily  command 
an  Irish  county.  It  would  only  be  a  picture  less  in  his  gallery,  or 
an  antique  gern  the  less  in  his  collection.  The  cost  would  be  but 
as  dust  under  his  feet,  compared  with  the  pleasure  of  domination. 
He  had  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  every  clause  in  the  noble 
Lord's  bill  tended  to  harass  and  obstruct  the  voter  in  obtaining  his 
just  rights.  The  effect,  in  short,  would  be,  that  a  great  many 
would  abandon  the  claim  altogether.  The  franchise  was  a  sacred 
public  trust,  which  should  be  used  for  the  benefit  of  the  public, 
and  yet  when  honestly  seeking  that,  their  pecuniary  interests  were 
to  be  seriously  affected.  They  should  also  take  into  consideration 
that  men  did  not  go  to  the  registry  with  the  same  spirit  with 
which  they  went  to  the  poll.  There  had  been  few  registrations 
since  1826,  at  which  a  general  election  was  expected;  and  men 
who,  when  the  candidates  were  declared,  and  when  perhaps  the  fate 
of  a  ministry  was  to  be  sealed,  would  pay  £50  or  run  any  trouble 
to  record  their  votes  in  a  hard-fought  election,  would  hardly  go 
across  the  street  to  register.  Therefore,  you  ought  rather  to 
encourage  than  discourage  registration.  Yet,  supposing  a  Parlia- 


REGISTRATION     OF     VOTERS — IRELAND.  3S'd 

ment  to  last  seven  years,  the  noble  Lord's  bill  would  expose  the 
voter  to  fourteen  law-suits,  against  which  what  human  fortitude  or 
human  patriotism  could  stand  out  ? — and  this  was  the  principle 
which  the  House  was  now  called  upon  to  assert  or  reject.  Sir, 
(continued  the  right  lion.  Gentleman),  there  is  another  considera 
tion  which  applies  specially  to  Ireland ;  that  is,  the  state  of  the 
franchise.  It  is  impossible  to  separate  that  from  the  subject  of 
registration — it  is  impossible  to  have  a  perfect  law  of  registration, 
that  is,  one  which  shall  throw  the  greatest  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  the  wrongful,  and  every  facility  in  the  way  of  the  rightful 
claimant :  but  it  is  still  open  for  you  to  distinguish  as  clearly  as 
possible  which  are  the  rightful  and  which  are  the  wrongful  claim 
ants,  and  how  can  I  decide  upon  a  question  like  this  without  look 
ing  at  the  state  of  the  franchise  ?  It  is  impossible  not  to  feel  how 
much  more  the  Irish  franchise  is  restricted,  as  compared  with  the 
English,  even  by  the  Reform  Bill — how  much  it  is  restricted  even 
below  what  Pitt,  and  Castlereagh,  and  Grenville,  and  Windham, 
considered  to  be  just.  Looking  at  statistics,  I  find  that  Westmore 
land,  with  little  more  than  50,000  inhabitants,  and  covered  by 
naked  hills  and  barren  moors,  has  more  voters  than  any  Irish 
county — than  Tipperary  with  400,000  inhabitants,  or  Cork  with 
800,000.  Sir,  I  cannot  think  that  even  the  superiority  of  England 
in  point  of  property  can  explain  so  enormous  a  disparity  ;  and, 
whatever  way  I  look  at  the  question,  I  think  that  the  Irish  franchise 
ought  to  be  rather  extended  than  restricted — if  it  is  to  be  altered 
at  all — and  I  do  not  pledge  myself  .to  support  any  proposition  for 
its  extension  ;  but  if  I  hesitate  to  interpose  to  make  it  better,  I 
will  not  lay  violent  hands  upon  it  to  make  it  worse — and  strong 
as  is  my  regard  for  the  great  settlement  of  1832,  I  will  never 
consent  to  m-ake  it  final  as  against  the  people  alone  ;  and  if 
not  restoring  what  it  took  away,  I  will  not  consent  to  withdraw  the 
smallest  portion  of  what  it  gave.  But,  Sir,  this  is  not  an  Irish 
merely,  it  is  an  imperial  question.  I  hope  and  trust  that  if  the 


384  REGISTRATION     OF     VOTERS IRELAND. 

bill  is  to  pass  at  all,  it  will  pass  modified  by  the  amendment  pro 
posed  to-night,  and  by  others  conceived  in  the  same  spirit.  But 
if  not,  I  shall  regard  it  as  the  first  step  in  a  great  retrograde  move 
ment — as  the  beginning  of  a  scheme  of  which  the  object  is  to 
undo  what  was  done  by  the  Reform  Bill.  I  do  not  believe  the 
Reform  Bill  would  be  directly  attacked.  Much  as  hon.  Gentle 
men  have  talked  of  re-action,  they  well  know  that  there  has  been 
no  re-action  here — they  well  know  that  it  would  not  be  safe  to 
attempt  to  despoil  our  great  cities  and  towns  of  political  power,  and 
confer  it  again  on  old  walls  and  mouldering  towers.  But  what 
cannot  be  done  directly  may  be  done  indirectly — it  matters  not 
what  franchise  is  conferred  if  the  means  of  acquiring  it  are 
restricted.  It  matters  not  how  well  the  law  of  rights  is  framed,  if  not 
accompanied  by  as  efficient  a  law  of  remedies — power  that  can  be 
obtained  only  by  wealth  or  time,  though  nominally  given  to  the 
many,  is  really  given  only  to  the  few.  Let  us  have  the  most  demo 
cratic  Reform  Bill,  and  let  the  noble  Lord  frame  our  registration, 
and  political  power  may  yet  be  in  the  hands  of  the  aristocracy  and 
its  tools.  The  Opposition  begin  with  Ireland,  and  they  are  wise. 
Distance,  difference  of  religious  belief — perhaps  that  unfriendly 
feeling,  the  natural  effect  of  much  wrong  inflicted,  and  much 
wrong  endured — may  have  deterred  the  people  of  this  country  from 
resenting  the  insult  offered  to  the  Irish  nation  as  they  would  have 
resented  the  same  insult  to  themselves.  But,  Sir,  I  grieve  for  the 
short-sightedness  of  my  countrymen  ;  Ireland  is  the  first  field — it 
will  not  be  the  last.  I  believe  this  struggle  is  just  as  much  for 
Yorkshire  and  Kent  as  for  Cork  and  Kerry.  And  the  day  when 
the  constituencies,  worked  upon  this  bill,  shall  send  up  to  this 
House  representatives  regarded  by  the  Irish  people  as  enemies,  will 
be  dark  and  dreary  for  the  liberties  of  England.  But  it  is  not 
necessary  that  I  should  resort  to  topics  like  these.  The  derisive 
expressions  of  Gentlemen  opposite,  I  suppose  intimate,  that  they 
would  be  unjust  to  Ireland  alone.  Well,  whether  they  mean  this 


REGISTRATION     OF     VOTERS IRELAND.  385 

injustice  to  be  confined  to  Ireland  or  to  extend  to  England,  I 
hardly  know  how  to  express  my  reprobation  of  so  odious  and  dis 
gusting  a  measure.  The  people  of  Ireland  have  been  already 
hardly  enough  used.  When  we  granted  them  religious  emancipa 
tion,  we  took  away  their  franchise.  By  the  Reform  Bill,  a  very 
small  portion  of  what  was  before  taken  away  was  restored ;  and 
now  the  noble  Lord  by  this  bill  would  take  away  the  little  which 
the  Reform  Bill  bestowed.  There  is  only  one  bill  on  the  table 
relative  to  the  registration  in  England,  a  bill  laid  on  the  table  "by 
the  same  hand  that  laid  the  Reform  Bill  there,  and  one  worthy  of 
that  hand.  But  as  regards  Ireland,  we  are  now  discussing  a  bill 
made  up  of  the  very  worst  features  of  all  the  bills  that  have  been 
of  late  years  introduced  on  the  subject  of  registration — of  the 
English  system,  of  the  system  at  present  existing  in  Ireland, 
and  of  the  ill-considered  plan  of  Sir  Michael  O'Loghlen.  Yes ! 
the  ill-considered  plan  of  Sir  Michael  O'Loghlen.  Each  and  all 
of  these  systems  have  been  made  to  contribute  their  evil,  but  not 
one  of  their  redeeming  qualities  ;  and  the  noble  Lord,  out  of  those 
evil  qualities,  has  framed  his  bill.  What  must  be  the  feelings  of 
the  people  of  Ireland  when  they  compare  that  bill  with  the  bill 
laid  on  the  table  by  my  noble  Friend  for  the  settlement  of  the 
registration  system  in  England  ?  To  perpetuate  differences  and  to 
excite  discord  seems  to  be  the  object  of  the  noble  Lord.  Not 
such  was  the  spirit  in  which  the  great  minister  who  carried  the 
act  of  Union  treated  the  people  of  Ireland.  The  words  which  he 
quoted  seem  to  have  been  forgotten  by  the  noble  Lord. 

"Paribus  se  legibus  ambas 
Invictse  gentes  scterna  in  foedera  irittant." 

These    were    the   sentiments  of   the   promoter  of   the  act   of 

Union.     I  venerate  that  great  measure.     I  am  ready  to  defend  it 

against  the   open    enmity  of  the  hon.  and   learned    member  for 

Dublin,  as  against  the  still  more  dangerous  friendship  of  the  noble 

VOL.  T.  17 


ft  86  REGISTRATION     OF     VOTERS — IRELAND. 

Lord.  I  am  satisfied  that  for  every  repealer  made  by  the 
eloquence  of  the  hon.  and  learned  Member  for  Dublin,  ten 
would  be  produced  by  the  bill  of  the  noble  Lord  if  it  passed  in  its 
present  shape,  and  unmitigated.  Should  an  universal  cry  for 
repeal  of  the  Union  arise  in  Ireland  on  the  passing  of  the  bill,  I 
should  not  regard  it  in  any  other  light  than  as  the  natural  succession 
of  effect  and  cause.  It  would  be  puerile,  nay  it  would  be  hypo 
critical,  to  go  on  misgoverning,  and  to  pretend  to  hope  that  the 
results  of  good  government  would  follow — to  assume  that  those 
whom  we  treat  as  aliens,  ought  to  feel  towards  us  as  brothers — to 
oppose  agitation  and  multiply  the  grievances  by  which  agitation 
is  alone  supported,  and  by  which  it  was  originated — to  raise  the 
cry  of  civil  war  whereon  the  people  of  Ireland  called  for  a  repeal 
of  the  legislative  Union,  and  at  the  very  time  when  you  are  tak 
ing  steps  to  annul  all  those  rights  and  privileges,  without  which 
the  legislative  Union  would  be  but  an  empty  name. 


387 


THE    COPYRIGHT    BILL* 

FEBRUARY    5,    1841. 

THOUGH,  Sir,  it  is  in  some  sense  agreeable  to  approach  a  subject 
with  which  political  animosities  have  nothing  to  do,  I  offer  myself 
to  your  notice  with  some  reluctance.  It  is  painful  to  me  to  take  a 
course  which  may  possibly  be  misunderstood  or  misrepresented  as 
unfriendly  to  the  interests  of  literature  and  literary  men.  It  is 
painful  to  me,  I  will  add,  to  oppose  ray  lion,  and  learned  Friend 
on  a  question  which  he  has  taken  up  from  the  purest  motives,  and 
which  he  regards  with  a  parental  interest.  These  feelings  have 
hitherto  kept  me  silent  when  the  law  of  copyright  has  been  under 
discussion.  But  as  I  am,  on  full  consideration,  satisfied  that  the 
measure  before  us  will,  if  adopted,  inflict  grievous  injury  on  the 
public,  without  conferring  any  compensating  advantage  on  men  of 
letters,  I  think  it  my  duty  to  avow  that  opinion  and  to  defend  it. 
The  first  thing  to  be  done,  Sir,  is  to  settle  on  what  principles  the 
question  is  to  be  argued.  Are  we  free  to  legislate  for  the  public 
good,  or  are  we  not  ?  Is  this  a  question  of  expediency,  or  is  it  a 
question  of  right  ?  Many  of  those  who  have  written  and  petitioned 
against  the  existing  state  of  things,  treat  the  question  as  one  of 
right.  The  law  of  nature,  according  to  them,  gives  to  every  man 
a  sacred  and  indefeasible  property  in  his  own  ideas,  in  the  fruits 
of  his  own  reason  and  imagination.  The  legislature  has  indeed 
the  power  to  take  away  this  property,  just  as  it  has  the  power  to 
.pass  an  act  of  attainder  for  cutting  off  an  innocent  man's  head 
without  a  trial.  But  as  such  an  act  of  attainder  would  be  legal 

*  Hansard,  3<1  Series,  vol.  Ivi.  p.  344-357. 


388  COPYRIGHT     BILL. 

murder,  so  would  an  act  invading  the  right  of  an  author  to  his 
copy  be,  according  to  these  gentlemen,  legal  robbery.  Now,  Sir, 
if  this  be  so,  let  justice  be  done,  cost  what  it  may.  I  am  not 
prepared,  like  my  hon.  and  learned  Friend,  to  agree  to  a  compro 
mise  between  right  and  expediency,  to  commit  an  injustice  for  the 
public  convenience.  But  I  must  say,  that  his  theory  soars  far 
beyond  the  reach  of  my  faculties.  It  is  not  necessary  to  go,  on 
the  present  occasion,  into  a  metaphysical  inquiry  about  the  origin 
of  the  right  of  property  ;  and  certainly  nothing  but  the  strongest 
necessity  would  lead  me  to  discuss  a  subject  so  likely  to  be  dis 
tasteful  to  the  House.  I  agree,  I  own,  with  Paley  in  thinking  that 
property  is  the  creature  of  the  law,  and  that  the  law  which  creates 
property  can  be  defended  only  on  this  ground,  that  it  is  a  law 
beneficial  to  mankind.  But  it  is  unnecessary  to  debate  that  point. 
For  even  if  I  believed  in  a  natural  right  of  property,  independent 
of  utility  and  anterior  to  legislation,  I  should  still  deny  that  this 
right  could  survive  the  original  proprietor. /Few,  I  apprehend, 
even  of  those  who  have  studied  in  the  most  mystical  and  senti 
mental  schools  of  moral  philosophy,  will  be  disposed  to  maintain 
that  there  is  a  natural  law  of  succession  older  and  of  higher 
authority  than  any  human  code.  If  there  be,  it  is  quite  certain 
that  we  have  abuses  to  reform  much  more  serious  than  any  con 
nected  with  the  question  of  copyright.  For  this  natural  law  can 
be  only  one,  and  the  modes  of  succession  in  the  Queen's  dominions 
are  twenty.  To  go  no  further  than  England,  land  generally 
descends  to  the  eldest  son.  In  Kent  the  sons  share  and  share 
alike  ;  in  many  districts  the  youngest  takes  the  whole.  Formerly 
a  portion  of  a  man's  personal  property  was  secured  to  his  family. 
It  was  only  of  the  residue  that  he  could  dispose  by  will.  Now  he 
can  dispose  of  the  whole  by  will.  But  a  few  years  ago  you 
enacted,  that  the  will  should  not  be  valid  unless  there  were  two 
witnesses.  If  a  man  dies  intestate,  his  personal  property  generally 
goes  according  to  the  statute  of  distributions.  But  there  are  local 


COPYRIGHT     BILL.  389 

customs  which  modify  that  statute.  Now  which  of  all  these  systems 
is  conformed  to  the  eternal  standard  of  right  ?  Is  it  primogeni 
ture,  or  gavelkind,  or  borough  English  ?  Are  wills  jure  divino  ? 
Are  the  two  witnesses  jure  divino  ?  Might  not  the  pars  rationa- 
bilis  of  our  old  law  have  as  fair  a  claim  to  be  regarded  as  of  celes- 

K  tial  institution  ?  Was  the  statute  of  distributions  enacted  in  Heaven 
long  before  it  was  adopted  by  Parliament  ?  Or  is  it  to  Custom  of 
York,  or  to  Custom  of  London,  that  this  pre-eminence  belongs  ? 
Surely,  Sir,  even  those  who  hold  that  there  is  a  natural  right  of 
property  must  admit  that  rules  prescribing  the  manner  in  which 
the  effects  of  deceased  persons  shall  be  distributed,  are  purely 
arbitrary,  and  originate  altogether  in  the  will  of  the  legislature. 
If  so,  Sir,  there  is  no  controversy  between  my  hon.  and  learned 
Friend  and  myself  as  to  the  principles  on  which  this  question  is  to 
be  argued.  For  the  existing  law  gives  an  author  copyright  during 

-  his  natural  life ;  nor  do  I  propose  to  invade  that  privilege,  which 
I  should,  on  the  contrary,  be  prepared  to  defend  strenuously  against 
any  assailant.  The  point  in  issue  is,  how  long  after  an  author's 
death  the  State  shall  recognise  a  copyright  in  his  representatives 
and  assigns,  and  it  can,  I  think,  hardly  be  disputed  by  any  rational 
man  that  this  is  a  point  which  the  legislature  is  free  to  determine 
in  the  way  which  may  appear  to  be  most  conducive  to  the  general 
good.  We  may  now,  therefore,  I  think  descend  from  these  high 
regions,  where  we  are  in  danger  of  being  lost  in  the  clouds,  to 
firm  ground  and  clear  light.  Let  us  look  at  this  question  like 
legislators,  and  after  fairly  balancing  conveniences  and  inconve 
niences,  pronounce  between  the  existing  law  of  copyright  and  the 
law  now  proposed  to  us.  The  question  of  copyright,  Sir,  like 
most  questions  of  civil  prudence,  is  neither  Hack  nor  white,  but 
grey.  The  system  of  copyright  has  great  advantages,  and  great 
disadvantages,  and  it  is  our  business  to  ascertain  what  these  are, 
and  then  to  make  an  arrangement  undei  which  the  advantages 
may  be  as  far  as.  possible  secured,  and  the  disadvantages  as  far  as 


390  COPYRIGHT     BILL. 


possible  excluded.  The  charge  which  I  bring  against  my  hon.  and 
learned  Friend's  bill  is  this, — that  it  leaves  the  advantages  nearly 
what  they  are  at  present,  and  increases  the  disadvantages  at  least 
four  fold.  The  advantages  arising  from  a  system  of  copyright  are 
obvious.  It  is  desirable  that  we  should  have  a  supply  of  good 
books ;  we  cannot  have  such  a  supply  unless  men  of  letters  are 
liberally  remunerated :  and  the  least  objectionable  way  of  remune 
rating  them  is  by  means  of  copyright,  You  cannot  depend  for 
literary  instruction  and  amusement  on  the  leisure  of  men  occupied 
in  the  pursuits  of  active  life.  Such  men  may  occasionally  produce 
pieces  of  great  merit.  But  you  must  not  look  to  them  for  works 
which  require  deep  meditation  and  long  research.  Such  works 
you  can  expect  only  from  persons  who  make  literature  the  business 
of  their  lives.  Of  these  persons  few  will  be  found  among  the  rich 
and  the  noble.  The  rich  and  the  noble  are  not  impelled  to  intel 
lectual  exertion  by  necessity.  They  may  be  impelled  to  intellectual 
exertion  by  the  desire  of  distinguishing  themselves,  or  by  the 
desire  of  benefiting  the  community.  But  it  is  generally  within 
these  walls  that  they  seek  to  signalize  themselves  and  to  serve 
their  fellow  creatures.  Both  their  ambition  and  their  public  spirit, 
in  a  country  like  this,  naturally  take  a  political  turn.  It  is  then  on 
men  whose  profession  is  literature,  and  whose  private  means  are 
not  ample,  that  you  must  rely  for  a  supply  of  valuable  books. 
Such  men  must  be  remunerated  for  their  literary  labour.  And 
there  are  only  two  ways  in  which  they  can  be  remunerated.  One 
of  those  ways  is  patronage ;  the  other  is  copyright.  There  have 
been  times  in  which  men  of  letters  looked,  not  to  the  public,  but  to 
the  Government,  or  to  a  few  great  men,  for  the  reward  of  their 
exertions.  It  was  thus  in  the  time  of  Maecenas  and  Pollio  at 
Rome,  of  the  Medici  at  Florence,  of  Louis  the  Fourteenth  in  France, 
of  Lord  Halifax  and  Lord  Oxford  in  this  country.  Now,  Sir,  I 
well  know  that  there  are  cases  in  which  it  is  fit  and  graceful,  nay, 
in  which  it  is  a  sacred  duty,  to  reward  the  merits,  or  to  relieve  the 


cory>::inirr    BILL.  391 

distresses  of  men  of  genius  by  the  exercise  of  this  species  of  libe 
rality.  But  these  cases  are  exceptions.  I  can  conceive  no  system 
more  fatal  to  the  integrity  and  independence  of  literary  men,  than 
one  under  which  they  should  be  taught  to  look  for  their  daily 
bread  to  the  favour  of  ministers  and  nobles.  I  can  conceive  no 
system  more  certain  to  turn  those  minds  which  are  formed  by 
nature  to  be  the  blessings  and  ornaments  of  our  species  into  its 
scandal  and  its  pest.  We  have  then  only  one  resource  left.  Wo 
must  betake  ourselves  to  copyright,  be  the  inconveniences  of  copy 
right  what  they  may.  Those  inconveniences,  in  truth,  are  neither 
few  nor  small.  Copyright  is  monopoly,  and  produces  all  the 
effects  which  the  general  voice  of  mankind  attributes  to  monopoly. 
My  hon.  and  learned  Friend  talks  very  contemptuously  of  those 
who  are  led  away  by  the  theory  that  monopoly  makes  things  dear. 
That  monopoly  makes  things  dear  is  certainly  a  theory,  as  all  the 
great  truths  which  have  been  established  by  the  experience  of  all 
ages  and  nations,  and  which  are  taken  for  granted  in  all  reasonings, 
may  be  said  to  be  theories.  It  is  a  theory  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  it  is  a  theory  that  day  and  night  follow  each  other,  that 
lead  is  heavier  than  water,  that  bread  nourishes,  that  arsenic 
poisons,  that  alcohol  intoxicates.  If,  as  my  hon.  and  learned 
Friend  seems  to  hold,  the  whole  world  is  in  the  wrong  on  this 
point,  if  the  real  effect  of  monopoly  is  to  make  articles  good 
and  cheap,  why  does  he  stop  short  in  his  career  of  change? 
Why  does  he  limit  the  operation  of  so  salutary  a  principle  to  sixty 
years  ?  Why  does  he  consent  to  anything  short  of  a  perpetuity  ? 
He  told  us  that  in  consenting  to  anything  short  of  a  perpetuity 
he  was  making  a  compromise  between  extreme  right  and  expe 
diency.  But  if  his  opinion  about  monopoly  be  correct,  extreme 
right  and  expediency  would  coincide.  Or  rather  why  should  we 
not  restore  the  monopoly  of  the  East-India  trade  to  the  East-India 
Company  ?  Why  should  we  not  revive  all  those  old  monopolies 
which,  in  Elizabeth's  reign,  galled  our  fathers  so  severely  that, 


392  ,       COPYRIGHT     BILL. 

maddened  by  intolerable  wrong,  they  opposed  to  their  sovereign  a 
resistance  before  which  her  haughty  spirit  quailed  for  the  first  and 
for  the  last  time  ?  Was  it  the  cheapness  and  excellence  of  com 
modities  that  then  so  violently  stirred  the  indignation  of  the 
English  people  ?  I  believe,  Sir,  that  I  may  safely  take  •  it  for 
granted  that  the  effect  of  monopoly  generally  is  to  make  articles 
scarce,  to  make  them  dear,  and  to  make  them  bad.  Arid  I  may 
with  equal  safety  challenge  my  hon.  Friend  to  find  out  any 
distinction  between  copyright  'and  other  privileges  of  the  same 
kind, — any  reason  why  a  monopoly  of  books  should  produce  an 
effect  directly  the  reverse  of  that  which  was  produced  by  the  East- 
India  Company's  monopoly  of  tea,  or  by  Lord  Essex's  monopoly 
of  sweet  wines.  Thus,  then,  stands  the  case.  It  is  good,  that 
authors  should  be  remunerated ;  and  the  least  exceptionable  way 
of  remunerating  them  is  by  a  monopoly.  Yet  monopoly  is  an  evil. 
For  the  sake  of  the  good  we  must  submit  to  the  evil ;  but  the 
evil  ought  not  to  last  a  day  longer  than  is  necessary  for  the  purpose 
of  securing  the  good.  Now,  I  will  not  affirm,  that  the  existing 
law  is  perfect,  that  it  exactly  hits  the  point  at  which  the  monopoly 
ought  to  cease,  but  this  I  confidently  say,  that  it  is  very  much 
nearer  that  point  than  the  law  proposed  by  my  hon.  and  learned 
Friend.  For  consider  this  ;  the  evil  effects  of  the  monopoly  are 
proportioned  to  tlie.-leugth  of  its  duration.  But  the  good  effects 
for  the  sake  of  which  we  bear  with  the  evil  effects  are  by  no  means 
proportioned  to  the  length  of  its  duration.  ATmbnopoly  of  sixty 
years  produces  twice  as  much  evil  as  a  monopoly  of  thirty  years, 
and  thrice  as  much  evil  as  a  monopoly  of  twenty  years.  But  it  is 
by  no  means  the  fact  that  a  posthumous  monopoly  of  sixty  years, 
gives  to  an  author  thrice  as  much  pleasure  and  thrice  as  strong  a 
motive  as  a  posthumous  monopoly  of  twenty  years.  On  the  con 
trary,  the  difference  is  so  small  as  to  be  hardly  perceptible.  We 
all  know  how  faintly  we  are  affected  by  the  prospect  of  very 
distant  advantages,  even  when  they  are  advantages  which  we  may 


COPYRIGHT     BILL.  39S 

reasonably  hope  that  we  shall  ourselves  enjoy.     But  an  advantage 
that  is  to  be  enjoyed  more  thaifhalf  a  century  after  we  are  dead, 
by  somebody,  we  know  not  whom,  perhaps  by  somebody  unborn, 
by  somebody  utterly  unconnected  with  us,  is  really  no  motive  to 
action.    It  is  very  probable,  that  in  the  course  of  some  generations, 
land  in  the  unexplored  and  unmapped    heart  of  the  Australian 
continent,  will  be  very  valuable.     But  there  is  none  of  us  who 
would  lay  down  five  pounds  for  a  whole  province  in  the  heart  of 
the  Australian  continent.    We  know,  that  neither  we,  nor  anybody 
for  whom  we  care,  will  ever  receive  a  farthing  of  rent  from  such  a 
province.     And  a  man  is  very  little  moved  by  the  thought  that  in 
the  year  2000  or  2100,  somebody  who  claims  through  him,  will 
employ  more  shepherds  than  Prince  Esterhazy,  and  will  have  the 
finest  house  and  gallery  of  pictures  at  Victoria  or  Sydney.     Now,. 
this  is  the  sort  of  boon  which  my  hon.  and  learned  Friend  holds  j 
out  to   authors.     Considered    as  a  boon   to  them,  it  is  a  mere  j  • 
nullity  ;  but,  considered  as  an  impost  on  the  public,  it  is  no  nullity,  ) 
but  a  very  serious  and  fatal  reality  ;  I  will  take  an  example.     Dr; 
Johnson  died  fifty-six  years  ago.     If  the  law  were  what  my  hon. 
and  learned  Friend  wishes  to  make  it,  somebody  would  now  have 
the  monopoly  of  Dr.  Johnson's   works.     Who    that    somebody 
would  be,  it  is  impossible  to  say,  but  we  may  venture  to  guess.     I 
guess,  then,  that  it  would  have  been  some  bookseller,  who  was  the 
assign   of  another  bookseller,  who  was  the  grandson  of  a  third 
bookseller,  who  had  bought  the  copyright  from  Black  Frank,  the 
Doctor's  servant,  in  1785  or  1786.     Now,  would  the  knowledge, 
that  this  copyright  would  exist  in  1841,  have  been  a  source  of 
gratification  to  Johnson  ?    Would  it  have  stimulated  his  exertions  ? 
Would  it  have  once  drawn  him  out  of   his  bed   before   noon  ? 
Would  it  have  once  cheered  him   under   a  fit   of   the    spleen  3 
Would  it  have  induced  him  to  give  us  one  more  allegory,  one 
more  life  of  a  poet,  one  more  imitation  of  Juvenal  ?     I  firmly  believe 
not.     I  firmly  believe   that  a  hundred  years  ago,  when  he  was 

17* 


894  COPYRIGHT     BILL. 

writing  our  debates  for  the  Gentleman's  Magazine,  he  would  very 
much  rather  have  had  twopence  to  buy  a  plate  of  shin  of  beef  at  a 
cook's  shop  underground.  Considered  as  a  reward  to  him,  the 
difference  between  a  twenty  years'  term,  and  a  sixty  years'  term  of 
posthumous  copyright,  would  have  been  nothing  or  next  to 
nothing.  But  is  the  difference  nothing  to  us  ?  I  can  buy  Rasse- 
las  for  sixpence ;  I  might  have  had  to  give  five  shillings  for  it.  I 
can  buy  the  Dictionary — the  entire  genuine  Dictionary — for  two 
guineas,  perhaps  for  less  ;  I  might  have  had  to  give  five  or  six 
guineas  for  it.  Do  I  grudge  this  to  a  man  like  Dr.  Johnson  ? 
Not  at  all.  Show  me  that  the  prospect  of  this  boon  roused  him 
to  any  vigorous  effort,  or  sustained  his  spirits  under  depressing 
circumstances,  and  I  am  quite  willing  to  pay  the  price  of  such  an 
object,  heavy  as  that  price  is.  But  what  I  do  complain  of  is  that 
my  circumstances  are  to  be  worse,  and  Johnson's  none  the  better; 
that  I  am  to  give  five  pounds  for  what  to  him  was  not  worth  a 
farthing.  The  principle  of  copyright  is  this.  It  is  a  tax  on 
readers  for  the  purpose  of  givtng  a  bounty  to  writers.  The  tax  is 
an  exceedingly  bad  one  ;  it  is  a  tax  on  one  of  the  most  innocent 
and  most  salutary  of  human  pleasures ;  and  never  let  us  forget, 
that  a  tax  on  innocent  pleasures  is  a  premium  on  vicious  pleasures. 
I  admit,  however,  the  necessity  of  giving  a  bounty  to  genius  and 
learning.  In  order  to  give  such  a  bounty,  I  willingly  submit  even 
to  this  severe  and  burdensome  tax.  Nay,  I  am  ready  to  increase 
the  tax,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  by  so  doing  I  should  proportionally 
increase  the  bounty.  My  complaint  is,  that  my  hon.  and  learned 
Friend  doubles,  triples,  quadruples,  the  tax,  and  makes  scarcely 
any  perceptible  addition  to  the  bounty.  To  recur  to  the  case  of  Dr. 
Johnson, — what  is  the  additional  amount  of  taxation  which  would 
have  been  levied  on  the  public  for  Dr.  Johnson's  works  alone,  if 
my  hon.  and  learned  Friend's  bill  had  been  the  law  of  the  land  ? 
I  have  not  data  sufficient  to  form  an  opinion.  But  I  am  confident 
that  the  taxation  on  his  Dictionarv  alone  would  have  amounted  to 


COPYRIGHT     BILL.  395 

many  thousands  of  pounds.  In  reckoning  the  whole  additional 
sum  which  the  holders  of  his  copyrights  would  have  taken  out  of 
the  pockets  of  the  public  during  the  last  half  century  at  twenty 
thousand  pounds,  I  feel  satisfied  that  I  very  greatly  under-rate  it. 
Now,  I  again  say,  that  I  think  it  but  fair  that  we  should  pay 
twenty  thousand  pounds  in  consideration  of  twenty  thousand 
pounds'  worth  of  pleasure  and  encouragement  received  by  Dr. 
Johnson.  But  I  think  it  very  hard  that  we  should  pay  twenty 
thousand  pounds  for  what  he  would  not  have  valued  at  five 
shillings.  My  hon.  and  learned  Friend  dwells  on  the  claims  of 
the  posterity  of  great  writers.  Undoubtedly,  Sir,  it  would  be  very 
pleasing  to  see  a  descendant  of  Shakespeare  living  in  opulence, 
on  the  fruits  of  his  great  ancestor's  genius.  A  house  maintained 
in  splendour  by  such  a  patrimony  would  be  a  more  interesting 
and  striking  object  than  Blenheim  is  to  us,  or  than  Strathfieldsaye 
will  be  to  our  children.  But,  unhappily,  it  is  scarcely  possible  that, 
under  any  system,  such  a  thing  can  come  to  pass.  My  lion,  and 
learned  Friend  does  not  propose  that  copyright  shall  descend  to 
the  eldest  son,  or  shall  be  bound  up  by  irrevocable  entail.  It  is  to 
be  merely  personal  property.  It  is  therefore  highly  improbable 
that  it  will  descend  during  sixty  years  or  half  that  term  from 
parent  to  child.  The  chance  is  that  more  people  than  one  will 
have  an  interest  in  it.  They  will  in  all  probability  sell  it  and 
divide  the  proceeds.  The  price  which  a  bookseller  will  give  for  it 
will  bear  no  proportion  to  the  sum  which  he  wrill  afterwards  draw 
from  the  public,  if  his  speculation  proves  successful.  He  will  give 
little,  if  any  thing,  more  for  a  term  of  sixty  years  than  for  a  term 
of  thirty  or  five-and-twenty.  The  present  value  of  a  distant 
advantage  is  always  small ;  but  when  there  is  great  room  to  doubt 
whether  a  distant  advantage  will  be  any  advantage  at  all,  the 
present  value  sinks  to  almost  nothing.  Such  is  the  inconstancy 
of  the  public  taste,  that  no  sensible  man  will  venture  to  pronounce, 
with  confidence,  what  the  sale  of  any  book  published  in  our  days 


30(5  COPYRIGHT     BILL. 

will  be  in  the  years  between  1890  and  1900.  The  whole  fashion 
of  thinking  arid  writing  has  often  undergone  a  change  in  a  much 
shorter  period  than  that  to  which  my  hon.  and  learned  Friend 
would  extend  posthumous  copyright.  What  would  have  been 
considered  the  best  literary  property  in  the  earlier  part  of  Charles 
the  Second's  reign  ?  I  imagine  Cowley's  poems.  Overleap  sixty 
years,  and  you  are  in  the  generation  of  which  Pope  asked,  "  who 
now  reads  Cowley  ?"  What  works  were  ever  expected  with  more 
impatience  by  the  public  than  those  of  Lord  Bolingbroke,  which 
appeared,  I  think,  in  1754.  In  1814,  no  bookseller  would  have 
thanked  you  for  the  copyright  of  them  all,  if  you  had  offered  it 
to  him  for  nothing.  What  would  Paternoster-row  give  now  for 
the  copyright  of  Hayley's  Triumphs  of  Temper,  so  much  admired 
within  the  memory  of  many  people  still  living  ?  I  say,  therefore, 
that,  from  the  very  nature  of  literary  property,  it  will  almost 
always  pass  away  from  an  author's  family  ;  and  I  say,  that  the 
price  given  for  it  to  the  family  will  bear  a  very  small  proportion 
to  the  tax  which  the  purchaser,  if  his  speculation  turns  out  well, 
will  in  the  course  of  a  long  series  of  years  levy  on  the  public. 
If,  Sir,  I  wished  to  find  a  strong  and  perfect  illustration  of  the 
effects  which  I  anticipate  from  long  copyright,  I  should  select, 
— my  hon.  and  learned  Friend  will  be  surprised^ — I  should  select 
the  case  of  Milton's  grand-daughter.  As  often  as  this  bill  has 
been  under  discussion,  the  fate  of  Milton's  grand-daughter  has 
been  brought  forward  by  the  advocates  of  monopoly.  My  hon. 
and  learned  Friend  has  repeatedly  told  the  story  with  great  elo 
quence  and  effect.  He  has  dilated  on  the  sufferings,  on  the  abject 
poverty,  of  this  ill-fated  woman,  the  last  of  an  illustrious  race.  He 
tells  us  that,  in  the  extremity  of  her  distress,  Garrick  gave  her  a 
benefit,  that  Johnson  wrote  a  prologue,  and  that  the  public  contri 
buted  some  hundreds  of  pounds.  Was  it  fit,  he  asks,  that  she 
should  receive,  in  this  eleemosynary  form,  a  small  portion  of  what 
was  in  truth  a  debt  ?  Why,  he  asks,  instead  of  obtaining  a 


COPYRIGHT     BILL.  S9T 

pittance  from  charity,  did  she  not  live  in  comfort  and  luxury  on 
the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  her  ancestor's  works  ?  But,  Sir,  will 
my  lion,  and  learned  Friend  tell  me  that  this  event,  which  he  has 
so  often  and  so  pathetically  described,  was  caused  by  the  shortness 
of  copyright  ?  Why,  at  that  time,  the  duration  of  copyright  was 
longer,  than  even  he,  at  present,  proposes  to  make  it.  The  mono 
poly  lasted  not  sixty  years,  but  for  ever.  At  the  time  at  which 
Milton's  grand-daughter  asked  charity,  Milton's  works  were  the 
exclusive  property  of  a  bookseller.  Within  a  few  months  of  the 
day  on  which  the  benefit  was  given  at  Garrick's  theatre,  the  holder 
of  the  copyright  of  Paradise  Lost,  I  think  it  was  Tonson,  applied 
to  the  Court  of  Equity  for  an  injunction  against  a  bookseller,  who 
had  published  a  cheap  edition  of  the  great  epic  poem,  and  obtained 
his  injunction.  The  representation  of  Comus  was,  if  I  remember 
rightly,  in  1750 — the  injunction  in  1752.  Here,  then,  is  a  perfect 
illustration  of  what  I  conceived  to  be  the  effect  of  long  copyright. 
Milton's  works  are  the  property  of  a  single  publisher.  Everybody 
who  wants  them,  must  buy  them  at  Tonson's  shop,  and  at  Tonson's 
price.  Whoever  attempts  to  undersell  Tonson  is  harassed  with 
legal  proceedings.  Thousands  who  would  gladly  possess  a  copy 
of  Paradise  Lost,  must  forego  that  great  enjoyment.  And  what, 
in  the  meantime,  is  the  situation  of  the  only  person  for  whom  we 
can  suppose  that  the  author,  protected  at  such  a  cost  to  the  public, 
was  at  all  interested  ?  She  is  reduced  to  utter  destitution.  Milton's 
works  are  under  a  monopoly.  Milton's  grand-daughter  is  starving. 
The  reader  is  pillaged ;  but  the  writer's  family  is  not  enriched. 
Society  is  taxed  doubly.  It  has  to  give  an  exorbitant  price  for  the 
poems  ;  and  it  has  at  the  same  time  to  give  alms  to  the  only  sur 
viving  descendant  of  the  poet.  But  this  is  not  all.  I  think  it 
right,  Sir,  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  an  evil,  which  is 
perhaps  more  to  be  apprehended  when  an  author's  copyright 
remains  in  the  hands  of  his  family,  than  when  it  is  transferred  to 
booksellers.  I  seriously  fear,  that  if  such  a  measure  as  this  should  be 


398  COPT  RIGHT     BILL. 

adopted,  many  valuable  works  will  be  either  totally  suppressed  or 
grievously  mutilated.  -I  can  prove  that  this  danger  is  not  chime 
rical  ;  and  I  am  quite  certain  that,  if  the  danger  be  real,  the  safe 
guards  which  my  lion,  and  learned  Friend  has  devised  are 
altogether  nugatory.  That  the  danger  is  not  chimerical  may  easily 
be  shown.  Most  of  us,  I  am  sure,  have  known  persons  who,  very 
erroneously,  as  I  think,  but  from  the  best  motives,  would  not 
choose  to  reprint  Fielding's  novels,  or  Gibbon's  History  of  the 
Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire.  Some  Gentlemen  may 
perhaps  be  of  opinion,  that  it  would  be  as  well  if  Tom  Jones 
and  Gibbon's  History  were  never  reprinted.  I  will  not,  then,  dwell 
on  these  or  similar  cases.  I  will  take  cases  respecting  which  it  is 
not  likely  that  there  will  be  any  difference  of  opinion  here,  cases 
too  in  which  the  danger  of  which  I  now  speak  is  not  matter  of 
supposition,  but  matter  of  fact.  Take  Richardson's  novels.  What 
ever  I  may,  on  the  present  occasion,  think  of  my  hon.  and  learned 
Friend's  judgment  as  a  legislator,  I  must  always  respect  his  judg 
ment  as  a  critic.  He  will,  I  am  sure,  say  that  Richardson's 
novels  are  among  the  most  valuable,  among  the  most  original 
works  in  our  language.  No  writings  have  done  more  to  raise  the 
fame  of  English  genius  in  foreign  countries.  No  writings  are 
more  deeply  pathetic.  No  writings,  those  of  Shakespeare  excepted, 
show  such  profound  knowledge  of  the  human  heart.  As  to  their 
moral  tendency,  I  can  cite  the  most  respectable  testimony.  Dr. 
Johnson  describes  Richardson  as  one  who  had  taught  the  passions 
to  move  at  the  command  of  virtue.  My  dear  and  honoured 
Friend^Mr.  Wilberforce,  in  his  celebrated  religious  treatise,  when 
speaking  of"  the  unchristian  tendency  of  the  fashionable  novels  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  most  distinctly  excepts  Richardson  from 
the  censure.  Another  excellent  person  whom  I  can  never  mention 
without  respect  and  kindness,  Mrs.  Hannah  More,  often  declared 
in  conversation,  and  has  declared  in  one  of  her  published  poems, 
that  she  first  learned  from  the  writings  of  Richardson  those  princi- 


CO  Prill  GHT     BILL.  399 

plus  of  piety,  by  which  her  life  was   guided.     I  may  safely  say 
that  books  celebrated  as  works  of  art  through  the  whole  civilised 
world,  and  praised   for  their  moral  tendency  by  Dr.  Johnson,  by 
Mr.  Wilberforce,  by  Mrs.  Hannah  More,  ought  not  to  be  suppressed. 
Sir,  it  is  my  firm  belief,  that  if  the  law  had  been  what  my  hon. 
and  learned   Friend  proposes  to  make  it,  they  would  have  been 
suppressed.     I  remember  Richardson's  grandson  well;  he  was  a 
clergyman  in  the  city  of  London ;  he  was  a  most  upright  and 
excellent  man;  but  he  had  conceived  a  strong  prejudice  against 
works  of  fiction.     He  thought  all  novel-reading  not  only  frivolous 
but  sinful.     He  said, — this  I  state  on  the  authority  of  one  of  his 
clerical  brethren,  who  is  now  a  bishop  ;— he  said  that  he  had  never 
thought  it  right  to  read  one  of  his  grandfather's  books.     Suppose, 
Sir,  that  the  law  had  been  what  my  hon.  and  learned  Friend  would 
make  it.     Suppose  that  the  copyright  of  Richardson's  novels  had 
descended,  as  might  well  have  been  the  case,  to  this  gentleman.    I 
firmly  believe,  that  he  would  have  thought  it  sinful  to  give  them 
wide  circulation.    I  firmly  believe,  that  he  would  not  for  a  hundred 
thousand  pounds  have  deliberately  done  what  he  thought  sinful. 
He  would  not  have  reprinted  them.     And  what  protection  does 
my  hon.  and  learned  Friend  give  to  the  public  in  such  a  case? 
Why,  Sir,  what  he  proposes  is  this :  if  a  book  is  not  reprinted 
during  five  years,  any  person  who  wishes  to  reprint  it  may  give 
notice  in  the  London  Gazette  :  the  advertisement  must  be  repeated 
three  times  :  a  year  must  elapse  ;  and  then,  if  the  proprietor  of 
the  copyright  does  not  put  forth  a  new  edition,  he  loses  his  exclu 
sive  privilege.     Now,  what  protection  is  this  to  the  public  2  What 
is  a  new  edition  ?     Does  the  law  define  the  number  of  copies  that 
make   an   edition  ?     Does  it  limit  the  price  of  a   copy  ?     Are 
twelve  copies  on  large  paper,  charged  at  thirty  guineas  each,  an 
edition  ?     It  has  been  usual,  when  monopolies  have  been  granted, 
to  prescribe  numbers  and  to  limit  prices.     But  I  do  not  find  that 
my  hon.  and  learned  Friend  proposes  to  do  so  in  the  present  case. 


400  COPYRIGHT     BILL. 

And,  without  some  such  provision,  the  security  which  he  offers  is 
manifestly  illusory.     It  is  my  conviction,  that  under  such  a  system 
as  that  which  he  recommends  to  us,  a  copy  of  Clarissa  would 
have  been   as  rare  as  an  Aldus  or  a  Caxton.     I  will  give  another 
instance.      One  of  the  most  instructive,  interesting,  and  delightful 
books  in  our  language   is  BoswelPs  Life  of  Johnson.     Now  it  is 
well  known  that  Boswell's  eldest  son  considered  this  book,  consi 
dered  the  whole  relation  of  Boswell  to  Johnson,  as  a  blot  in  the 
escutcheon  of   the  family.     He  thought,  not  perhaps  altogether 
without  reason,  that  his  father  had  exhibited  himself  in  a  ludicrous 
and  degrading  light.     And  thus  he  became  so  sore  and  irritable, 
that  at  last  he  could  not  bear  to  hear  the  Life  of  Johnson  men 
tioned.     Suppose  that  the  law  had  been  what  my  hon.  and  learned 
Friend  wishes  to  make  it.    Suppose  that  the^copyright  of  Boswell's 
Life  of  Johnson  had  belonged,  as  it  well  might,  during  sixty  years 
to  Boswell's  eldest  son.     What  would  have  been  the  consequence  ? 
An  unadulterated  copy  of  the  finest  biographical   work   in  the 
world  would  have  been  as  scarce  as  the  first  edition  of  Camden. 
These  are  strong  cases.     I  have  shewn  you  that,  if  the  law  had 
been  what  you  are  now  going  to  make  it,  the  finest  prose  work  of 
fiction  in  the  language,  the  finest  biographical  work  in  the  lan 
guage,   would  very  probably  have  been  suppressed.     But  I  have 
stated  my  case  weakly.     The  books  which  I  have  mentioned  are  sin 
gularly  inoffensive  books, — books  not  touching  on  any  of  those 
questions  which    drive  even   wise   men   beyond    the  bounds    of 
wisdom.     There  are  books  of  a  very  different  kind, — books  which 
are  the  rallying  points  of  great  political  and  religious    parties. 
What  is  likely  to  happen  if  the  copyright  of  one  of  these  books 
should  by  descent  or  transfer  come  into  the  possession  of  some 
hostile  zealot  ?    I  will  take  a  single  instance.     It  is  fifty  years  since 
John  Wesley  died ;  his  works,  if  the  law  had  been  what  my  hon. 
and  learned  Friend  seeks  to  make  it,  would  now  have  been  the 
property  of  some  person  or  other.     The  sect  founded  by  Wesley 


COPYRIGHT     BILL.  401 

is  the  most  numerous,  the  wealthiest,  the  most  powerful,  the  most 
zealous,  of  sects.  In  every  election  it  is  a  matter  of  the  greatest 
importance  to  obtain  the  support  of  the  Wesleyan  Methodists. 
Their  numerical  strength  is  reckoned  by  hundreds  of  thousands. 
They  hold  the  memory  of  their  founder  in  the  greatest  reve 
rence  ;  and  not  without  reason,  for  he  was  unquestionably  a  great 
and  a  good  man.  To  his  authority  they  constantly  appeal.  His 
works  are  in  their  eyes  of  the  highest  value.  His  doctrinal  writings 
they  regard  as  containing  the  best  system  of  theology  ever  deduced 
from  Scripture.  His  journals,  interesting  even  to  the  common 
reader,  are  peculiarly  interesting  to  the  Methodist :  for  they  contain 
the  whole  history  of  that  singular  polity  which,  weak  and  despised 
in  its  beginning,  is  now,  after  the  lapse  of  a  century,  so  strong,  so 
flourishing,  and  so  formidable.  The  hymns  to  which  he  gave  his 
imprimatur  are  a  most  important  part  of  the  public  worship  of  his 
followers.  Now  suppose  that  the  copyright  of  these  works 
belonged  to  some  person  who  holds  the  memory  of  Wesley  and 
the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  Methodists  in  abhorrence. 
There  are  many  such  persons.  The  Ecclesiastical  Courts  are  at 
this  very  time  sitting  on  the  case  of  a  clergyman  of  the  Established 
Church  who  refused  Christian  burial  to  a  child  baptized  by  a 
Methodist  preacher.  I  took  up  the  other  day  a  work  which  is 
considered  as  among  the  most  respectable  organs  of  a  large  and 
growing  party  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  there  I  saw  John 
Wesley  designated  as  a  forsworn  priest.  Suppose  that  the  works 
of  Wesley  were  suppressed.  Why,  Sir,  such  a  grievance  would 
be  enough  to  shake  the  foundations  of  Government.  Let  Gentlemen 
who  are  attached  to  the  Church  reflect  for  a  moment  what  their 
feelings  would  be  if  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  were  not  to  be 
reprinted  for  thirty  or  forty  years, — if  the  price  of  a  Book  of  Com 
mon  Prayer  were  run  up  to  five  or  ten  guineas.  And  then  let 
them  determine  whether  they  will  pass  a  law  under  which  it  is 
possible,  under  which  it  is  probable,  that  so  intolerable  a  wrong 


402          ,     ^J  COPYRIGHT     BILL. 

may  be  done  to  some  sect  consisting  perhaps  of  half  a  million  of 
persons.  /"I  am.  so  sensible,  Sir,  of  the  kindness  with  which  the 
House  has  listened  to  me,  that  I  will  not  detain  you  longer.  I 
will  only  say  this, — that  if  the  measure  before  us  should  pass,  and 
should  produce  one-tenth  part  of  the  evil  which  it  is  calculated  to 
produce,  and  which  I  fully  expect  it  to  produce,  there  will  soon  be 
a  remedy,  though  of  a  very  objectionable  kind.  Just  as  the  absurd 
acts  which  prohibited  the  sale  of  game  were  virtually  repealed  by 
the  poacher,  just  as  many  absurd  revenue  acts  have  been  virtually 
repealed  by  the  smuggler,  will  this  law  be  virtually  repealed  by 
piratical  booksellers.  At  present  the  holder  of  copyright  has  the 
public  feeling  on  his  side.  Those  who  invade  copyright  are 
regarded  as  knaves  who  take  the  bread  out  of  the  mouth  of 
deserving  men.  Every  body  is  well  pleased  to  see  them  restrained 
by  the  law  and  compelled  to  refund  their  ill-gotten  gains.  No 
tradesmen  of  good  repute  will  have  anything  to  do  with  such 
disgraceful  transactions.  Pass  this  law  :  and  that  feeling  is  at  an 
end.  Men  of  a  character  very  different  from  that  of  the  present 
race  of  piratical  booksellers  will  soon  infringe  this  intolerable 
monopoly.  Great  masses  of  capital  will  be  constantly  employed 
in  the  violation  of  the  law.  Every  art  will  be  employed  to  evade 
legal  pursuit ;  and  the  whole  nation  will  be  in  the  plot.  On  which 
side  indeed  should  the  public  sympathy  be  when  the  question  is 
whether  some  book  as  popular  as  Robinson  Crusoe,  or  the  Pil 
grim's  Progress,  shall  be  in  every  cottage,  or  whether  it  shall  be 
confined  to  the  libraries  of  the  rich  for  the  advantage  of  the  great 
grandson  of  a  bookseller  who,  a  hundred  years  before,  drove  a 
hard  bargain  for  the  copyright  with  the  author  when  in  great 
distress  ?  Remember  too  that  when  once  it  ceases  to  be  considered 
as  wrong  and  discreditable  to  invade  literary  property,  no  person 
can  say  where  the  invasion  will  stop.  The  public  seldom  makes 
nice  distinctions.  The  wholesome  copyright  which  now  exists  will 
share  in  the  disgrace  and  danger  of  the  new  copyright  which  you 


COPYRIGHT     BILL.  403 

are  about  to  create;  And  you  will  find  that,  in  attempting  to 
impose  unreasonable  restraints  on  the  reprinting  of  the  works  of 
the  dead,  you  have,  to  a  great  extent,  annulled  those  restraints 
which  now  prevent  men  from  pillaging  and  defrauding  the  living. 
If  I  saw,  Sir,  any  probability  that  this  bill  could  be  so  amended  in 
the  committee  that  my  objections  might  be  removed,  I  would  not 
divide  the  House  in  this  stage.  But  I  am  so  fully  convinced  that 
no  alteration  which  would  not  seem  insupportable  to  my  hon.  and 
learned  Friend,  could  render  his  measure  supportable  to  me,  that  I 
must  move,  though  with  regret,  that  this  bill  be  read  a  second  time 
this  day  six  months. 


END  OF  VOL.  L 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


MV?  17 


16Nov51CF 


6No-/5lLU 


OCC271S38 


-   ^. 


13MY'64S« 


CD 


DEAD 


"J  DOT  H1981    bl 
SEP  H  tfuk  2l'8BZ 


4Dec'62W|ferD 


LD  21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6) 


JUli  :8  0  1982 

SEP07-98 


SAM 


